Bernice Moore
-
Posts
3,556 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bernice Moore
-
-
OK, Miles I got it by email. The problem with hosting it is its size.
1.45mb compuserve gif.
If anyone can host it for people to download please email/pm for a copy.
Hi John.
Email me a copy and i will upload it to my site.
That's great, Robin. Again, your site comes up aces!
This map is remarkable. Somewhat startled that you & John have not got it. Hence my not bookmarking where I found it some weeks ago. If you have any trouble uploading it let me know.
**********
Hi Miles :
Great looking map, may I throw a but in here...
One point jumped out at me, there is far too much distance shown between the Presidents 100X, and the SS Queen Mary..........it was approx 5 feet, not approx 25 ft, behind...and from what I see on that map, it appears in error...
I do not know if these would come in handy but here are a couple....for now, if interested....
B.....
-
Hi Gary:
Here is a document that may be of some use to you, in your research.....?
B
-
Hi Miles :
Check the photos I just posted, I had trouble attaching them..
Keep in mind please, just how much was fabricated within all..
the evidence, imo..
.Especially have a look at CE 351..No, not away, just on the search, and reading....we women
you know come and go at our own whim.
B
-
Hi Robin:
Yes the front seat was all one...
-
""In addition, of particular note was the small hole just to the left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed. The team of agents also noted that the chrome molding strip above the windshield, inside the car, just right of center, was dented. The FBI Agents stated that this dent was made by the bullet fragment which was found imbedded in the front cushion.""
Record Number 180-10099-10390 Agency File Number 002528
Originator-WC
From: Taylor, Charles E.
To:
Date: 11/27/63
Pages: 4
Subjects: Kennedy, John, Autopsy
Evidence, Medical
Wound Ballistics
USSS
Date of release: 12/16/93
Contents: Secret Service Report dated 11/27/63 by Agents Charles E. Taylor, Jr. and Harry W. Geiglein on investigation of clues found in the Presidential limousine.
Document follows in full.
ORIGIN: White House Detail OFFICE: Washington, D.C.
FILE NO.: CO-2-34,030
TYPE OF CASE: Protective Research STATUS: Closed
INVESTIGATION MADE AT: Washington, D.C.
PERIOD COVERED: November 22-23, 1963
INVESTIGATION MADE BY: SAIC Harry W. Geiglein
SA Charles E. Taylor, Jr.
TITLE OR CAPTION: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
SYNOPSIS
This report relates to the measures employed to effect security of the President's car, 100-X, and the follow-up car, 679-X, on return from Dallas, Texas, following the assassination of President Kennedy.
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION
This investigation was initiated on November 22, 1963, following receipt of instructions from ASAIC Floyd M. Boring, White House Detail, that steps be taken to effect security of the President's car (100-X) and the follow-up car (679-X) on their return from Dallas, Texas. President John F. Kennedy occupied the rear seat of SS-100-X when he was assassinated, and SS-679-X was directly behind the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination. There two vehicles were driven to Love Field, Dallas, Texas, for immediate transportation to Andrews Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.
Following the arrival of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the remains of President Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base, the reporting Special Agents conferred with Captain Milton B. Hartenblower, Duty Operations Officer, and Lt. Colonel Robert Best, Provost Marshal, Andrews Air Force Base, to arrange for landing instruction of the Air Force cargo plane transporting the subject vehicles and to escort these vehicles from Andrews Air Force Base. Also, arrangements were made with the U.S. Park Police for motorcycle escort of these automobiles to the White House Garage.
DISTRIBUTION: Chief Washington
COPIES: Orig. & 2 cc 2 cc
REPORT MADE BY: /s/ Charles E. Taylor, Jr. DATE: 11/27/63
Charles E. Taylor, Jr.
APPROVED: /s/ Harry W. Geiglein DATE: 11/27/63
Harry W. Geiglein
SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE: Harry W. Geiglein
CO-2-34,030
Page 2
At 8:00 P.M. on November 22, 1963, SS-100-X and SS-679-X arrived at Andrews Air Force Base on Air Force Cargo Plane No. 612373 (C-130-E), which plane was assigned to the 78th Air Transport Squadron from Charleston Air Force Base and piloted by Captain Thomason. The plane was taxied to a point just off of Runway 1028, approximately 100 yards from the Control Tower at Andrews AFB, and a security cordon was placed around the aircraft while these vehicles were being unloaded.
On the plane accompanying these vehicles were Special Agents Kinney and Hickey.
The Presidential vehicles were driven under escort to the White House Garage at 22nd and M Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C., arriving at approximately 9:00 P.M. SS-100-X was driven by SA Kinney, accompanied by SA Taylor, and SS-679-x was driven by SA Hickey, accompanied by Special Agents Keiser and Brett.
On arrival, SS-100-X was backed into the designated parking bin and SS-679-X was parked a few feet away. A plastic cover was placed over SS-100-X and it was secured. The follow-up car, SS-679-X, was locked and secured. Special Agents Keiser, Brett, and the reporting Special Agent effected security, assisted by White House Policemen Snyder and Rubenstal.
At 10:10 P.M., Deputy Chief Paterni, ASAIC Boring, and representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X.
At 12:01 A.M., November 23, 1963, the security detail was relieved by Special Agents Paraschos and Kennedy and White House Policeman J. W. Edwards.
At 1:00 A.M., as per arrangements by Deputy Chief Paterni, a team of FBI Agents examined the Presidential limousine. This team was comprised of Orrin H. Bartlett, Charles L. Killian, Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert A. Frazier, and Walter E. Thomas .
Mr. Orin Bartlett drove the Presidential vehicle out of the bin. The team of FBI Agents, assisted by the Secret Service Agents on duty, removed the leatherette convertible top and the plexi-glass bubbletop; also the molding strips that secure the floor matting, and the rear seat. What appeared to be bullet fragments were removed from the windshield and the floor rug in the rear of the car.
CO-2-34,030
Page 3
The two blankets on the left and right rear doors were removed, inspected, and returned to the vehicle. The trunk of the vehicle was opened and the contents examined, and nothing was removed. A meticulous examination was made of the back seat to the car and the floor rug, and no evidence was found. In addition, of particular note was the small hole just to the left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed. The team of agents also noted that the chrome molding strip above the windshield, inside the car, just right of center, was dented. The FBI Agents stated that this dent was made by the bullet fragment which was found imbedded in the front cushion.
During the course of this examination, a number of color photos were taken by this FBI <"FBI" inserted in longhand with an arrow> search team. They concluded their examination at 4:30 A.M. and the President's car was reassembled and put back in the storage bin.
At 8:00 A.M. on November 23, the security detail was relieved by Special Agents Hancock and Davis and White House Policeman J. C. Rowe. SA Gonzalez relieved SA Hancock at Noon and at 4:00 P.M., Messrs, Fox and Norton, Protective Research Section, photographed the Presidential limousine. At 4:30 P.M., SA Gonzalez contacted SAIC Bouck and Deputy Chief Paterni and, at their request, the flowers, torn pieces of paper, and other miscellaneous debris were removed from the floor of the car (SS-100-X) and taken to the Washington Field Office. At that time, the special detail securing the Presidential limousine and the follow-up car was discontinued.
DISPOSITION
This case is closed with the submission of this report.
CET:mkd
Below FBI CE 351 ......and FBI 307 Photographs
& FBI Document released..
Bernice..
-
Hi John, I agree the DENT in the chrome strip can be seen claerly in the parkland photo.
The limo you showed appears to be a different car, in jfk's limo the back seat was almost flush with the back of the car , not protruding up in the air.
Hi Robin, the rear seat was built to be moved up or down as suits the occasion.
Perhaps Pamela can say whether the fold down foot platforms were on Kennedy's Continental?
***********
John you may be interested in these...The 100 X was delivered June 15/61..as seen with the SS on the side....but it went back to the "shop" for changes and updates....in Sept..something is niggling,
but will not say positively, that the fold down foot platforms were removed...at that time...below is Baughman with the back seat raised...
B...
Bernice, yes, theank you. There AFAIK was a contionuous runningboard that was removed. Whether the little fold down steps replaqced that or not I don't know. The color photo there with the guy standing on what looks like one of the fold down steps, when is that from?
Miles, I agree that one can't see a hole or cracks in A6. There may be reasons for that, lighting directions etc, or there was no hole or crack at that time. One thing though is that there is an account of the cracks spreading beween then and till back at the airport as the Limo was being driven. ie, the initial damage was less than after the stressing caused by the limo being driven. At the same time the bullet or fragments could conceivably cause the dent and the bend in the central visor mount and then a fragment ricochet back to Kennedy and the hole/crack is from another shot. I don't know.
John :
That photo was taken upon the day of delivery.....June 15/61........I had a look but cannot find what I am after of course....Seems to me and I will keep looking,
that those steps ? were removed in Sept..as they thought they would be a danger for people tripping over, some such as that....like I say it is not a given....
B......
-
Hi Myra,
None that have been proven to my knowledge....though there were statements made by some that it was hit,
there is no proof..that I have ever seen.There are photos enlarged of what some thought could be, but ?
I have been reading about him since before he became President, my Dad was Irish.
And after the assn it continued, the reading and studying, the papers, magazines,books and connecting,
what was available back then and it was not much.
The following through on the evidence as far as possible..as for the photos, and docs... from the web,
and scanning so many from the books..and information found. Building your own library..
Now with the videos and the DVDs available and the WC report, and the other reports on the web and studies,
as well as all else, it is like Christmas every day to many....plus the radio programs etc...it is like a damn burst
with a flood of information, and has been of great benefit to all..but studying is about it....
You can read what many say but you must do your own and follow through...and that is where the studies comes in..imo.
B
-
Thanks Kathy it is segment 3.....great...appreciated.
Myra: I have to say it girl, you have a long, long way to go, and are a beggar for punishment....in finding destroyed
evidence, like have you got say the next ten years anyway or so...
to try to run it down...well good.....and a tremendous amount of reading time, along the way......there is only so much
on the web, most of all is within the books...and then what is real and was and what was not.. is another question...
Certainly not meaning to throw any cold water on your enterprise , please do so, and keep it going....But with your site
and all, you are busy with......it just hit me as funny, like biting off, 3/4rs of a cake...and all at the same time,
but I certainly wish you the best of luck with your compilation....you go to it....girl..
BTW: the woman that runs the site is Pamela McElwain-Brown..
Dougs bio is also below...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKweldonD.htm
I think there is info on the clothes in the "Murder"series Dr.Jim's..within those 3 books....there is so much ..see they are a
compilation of the works of many, who have studied separate areas and wrote their information and is presented as a chapter
within the three, it is not all there ...there certainly is also a great amount of information on many areas within other books as well..
..such as within Armstrongs Harvey & Lee, a ton of it..and David Lifton's BE...and many others
The Tague curb hit, is covered by Harold Weisberg and the curb has been destroyed, along with the analysis, they did not have enough
room to store it, a wee tiny piece of film the size perhaps of a postage stamp,containing that analysis.. not enough room, you ought to
hear Harold go on about that one...on tape.....and if
memory serves he does have that analysis information within his books......so what he did gather
for us at the time, what was available, and through his many suits, to the Gov. yeah Harold...
for the documents, as well as a helpful soul working within the archives, is perhaps all we shall ever get on that subject..
hopefully not, but ??
The Weisberg books BTW are available through Horn College and at a very good price..compared to many....
They are published for and taught as a course for the students, so are in a type of paper back form, medium sized,but it is all there..
The Stemmons Freeway sign, the earliest I have read is that it was removed within 30 minutes but I doubt that imo, but what do I know.?
.....However in Weisberg there is information by the groundskeeper, who stated that it was gone by Spring,
Penn Jones also states that when they went back the next Spring the sign had been replaced...but no one knew when exactly.
Now some time ago someone did contact the Dallas Works Dept....I kind of think they went to see them, ??anyway who takes
care of such things...hoping the within the records, the information would be found, but they were told no, there were no records
kept when such things as the signs were replaced??? and certainly none going back that far..perhaps gobbleygook.?? We shall never
know, as they have been changed about on a regular basis it seems, as well as the light poles and with the addition of others...down
though the years..so...??
So all the best within your research..
B..
-
Hi John, I agree the DENT in the chrome strip can be seen claerly in the parkland photo.
The limo you showed appears to be a different car, in jfk's limo the back seat was almost flush with the back of the car , not protruding up in the air.
Hi Robin, the rear seat was built to be moved up or down as suits the occasion.
Perhaps Pamela can say whether the fold down foot platforms were on Kennedy's Continental?
***********
John you may be interested in these...The 100 X was delivered June 15/61..as seen with the SS on the side....but it went back to the "shop" for changes and updates....in Sept..something is niggling,
but will not say positively, that the fold down foot platforms were removed...at that time...below is Baughman with the back seat raised...
B...
-
Your welcome..
I came to correct my error on which Tape on TMWKK..unfortunately Doug Weldon is on the final chapter which is not available for
purchase..
The Smoking Guns....the last of that video series..... though I am wondering if it is on one of the sites such
as Gil Jesus and John has been enabling for us...?
Doug is finally writing a book, on this subject......when it shall be out I have no idea. Hopefully soon..He has been researching this subject
since 78 thereabouts,
I believe and it is the study of the SS + the Limo....and what shenanigans occurred surrounding it..
The story is not straight forward as some would seemingly have us believe, nothing is within the subject of the assn....
and it was the prime evidence, the murder scene in otherwards.....and was destroyed..... as so much else has been...
It is one of the subject areas though there has been some work done, there has not been a complete deep study. That
is what he has done...
The SS certainly by Vince Palamara, but not the 100X....so we await...
You and or some may be interested in his article at Mary's site....
Kennedy Chronicles , Volume 5 Issue 1..1999
A study of the Presidential Limousine, by Doug Weldon..
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=226698
B...
-
Hi Myra:
Re the below information on the Limo that you have brought forth, from Pamela's site...........to get up to date.....within the studies of that area the
SS & the 100..X...
There is much further information, re the Limo and the "windshield" investigation in particular, by Doug Weldon.....within Dr.Fetzers books.......see "Murder In Dealey Plaza"...as well as the other two in the series...
Also in the Videos TMWKK, though I believe it could be in "The Guilty Men"..not sure right now, perhaps someone will know positively......?
There is newer,research by Mr.Weldon that has been done.....if you are leaning in that direction..I believe by your post..
FYI..
""The WHITE HOUSE GARAGE kept logs for two days after the assassination, because SS-100-X and SS-679-X had been given a security detail. The logs were used to record the entry and exit of those who did not have White House Garage credentials. Those who did have credentials, such as SS agents, and FMC Liaison Vaughn Ferguson did not have to log in. According to the White House Garage Logs which consist of two pages that go together sideways the windshield was replaced by two men from the Arlington Glass Company on 11/26/63. This is verified by DC Ford Employee and White House Garage liaison F Vaughn Ferguson who was present when the windshield was replaced.
Check out pages one and two of the fascinating12/18/63 internal Ford Company memo of Vaughn Ferguson (from the Ford Motor Company Washington, DC office, NARA RIF 180-10105-10086), to R.W. Markley, the White House contact. This memo was originally sent to me by NARA by mistake, as its status was 'postponed'. On realizing this error, it was then released, minus the date of December 18, 1963. This memo is valuable in that it places the limo in the White House Garage following the assassination. It, along with statements by Rowley, Taylor, Kinney and Hoover give insight into what happened to 100-X after it was returned to DC; that it was cleaned, windshield replaced, back carpeting replaced and ready for the road by early December, 1963. The "Ferguson Memo" was also the catalyst for the January 6, 1964 letter from Chief Rowley (CD-80) to the Warren Commission.Page One two three fourfive (Support documents to be added soon). .."
Some of the SS Agents from that time period......originally from the Anthony Marsh collection...
Clint Hill was presented with an award for "Extraordinary courage and heroic effort in the face of maximum danger."
Gif by Mr.Aqbat...(spelling...sorry?)....Zapruder & Nix film comparisons..
Thanks...all.......B
-
Oh goodie, and now I get to bump it again...hotdogsaway..
B..
PS :BTW...I am not editing again on the previous, scared to see what
it may turn into.. but did want to let you know, the single photo, is of SSA Lem Johns.
Thanks..
B
-
Again .double...deleted.....????
Andy this is continually happening the....Attachments not taking the first time ?? and now they appear in the deleted post
but not the first???? Full edit....
scrambledeggs....
Hillarious now the attached photos appear in the first deleted post LOL...
I am leaving well enough alone....you get the photos first but who knows it
may have changed again ,when I click the "submit modifed post" again, me
thinks the Gremlin is active.....
it did LOL......sorry but it is funny......well to moi...
Thanks....
B.
The Politics of Protection
An Informal Review and Partial Rebutal
by Vince Palamara
Although known mainly for his impresive work in the RFK and MLK assassination cases, Prof. Phil Melanson published a little
known and largely overlooked work on the Secret Service, The Politics of Protecton. This book places much emphasis on
the JFK assassination and the post-Warren Commission changes made to it. It was highly regarded and had the full cooperation
of the Secret Service's own Public Affairs Department --- which tells you something of the thrust of the book: it attempts to
follow the beaten path of the Warren Commission and the HSCA by praising the agency's accomplishments, and glossing over
its profound (deliberate?) failure in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. In other words, the old "JFK-as-scapegoat" theme,
one also adopted by previous authors such as William Manchester and Jim Bishop, is alive and well in this work, which
originally appeared in 1984 (Orwell, please take note).
This article is distillation of a full review that was written several years ago, and circulated privately. Despite my strong views on
his book, Melanson liked my review so much he sent me a letter THANKING me for the in-depth study! In the interest of
sharing this with the research community, I feel it is appropriate to here detail the JFK-related portions of my full review, in the
hopes of demonstrating how important it is to take the next step in one's research: using primary sources and interviews with the
principal people themselves (in this case, the former Secret Service agents) and always questioning "official" history, especially
that which arises from the "public affairs" departments of the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service.
The chapter and page references herein refer to Melanson's book. Quoted passages, of course, indicate verbatim parts of the
book, while unquoted passages and/or section heads indicate issues Melanson raises. My comments follow.
* * *
Chapter 3 (pp 38-52)
"The organization's resources have grown impressively in the past two decades [1984]. Its budget has risen faster than inflation:
from a mere $8 million in 1963 to $27 million in 1970, to $98 million in 1975, to its present [1984] level of $180 million. The
Secret Service of the early 1960's had only 350 special agents and 170 uniformed officers, compared with today's [1984] 1800
agents and 900 uniformed officers. The White House detail which protected President Kennedy had 36 agents; the one
protecting President Reagan has nearly twice that many [70]".
Whether this could be construed by some --- and it has --- as being a motive for Secret Service complicity and/or cover-up is
for the reader to decide. Agent Marty Venker said that this growth would make the Pentagon envious, while agent Rufus
Youngblood said that, because of the assassination, the Secret Service is more appreciated by the taxpayers.
p.41- Clint Hill retired in 1975 as SAIC of the White House Detail (at age 43) --- this was due to much survivor's guilt
regarding the tragic events of 11/22/63.
Hill is, without a doubt, the most publicized of any Secret Service agent, past or present. He is also a "poster boy" for survivor's
guilt --- he is, more or less, a victim of the assassination (he has stated that it was his fault and that he should have reacted
faster!). So, while the organization has grown remarkably since 11/22/63 ($, equipment, personnel), their "star" agent, Clint Hill,
the one they decorated on 12/3/63 for bravery, took the fall: emotionally, physically, and publicly, covering for every other
agent that served under JFK.
CIA
"As with personnel, the Service often borrows from other agencies";
"Traditionally, though secretively, the Service has received training and equipment from the CIA"; i.e. color-coded lapel pins ...
[p.42] ... has received 'briefing/training' of a classified nature from the CIA." (CIA memo of 6/5/73.)
"Although the precise nature and extent of Secret Service dependence upon CIA remains top secret, it is surely important given
the Service's limitations of personnel and resources".
p.49-" Agents study movies of assassinations and attempted assassinations --- the Zapruder film of President Kennedy's
assassination, tapes of the two attempts on President Ford. They also study numerous assassination cases, both foreign and
domestic, and analyze each one --- Robert F. Kennedy ... Jack Ruby's murder of Oswald..."
Beltsville, MD facility-
pp. 49-50-" The figures appear for different lengths of time and carry a variety of objects --- briefcases, UMBRELLAS, guns".
p.67- "...tensions between the White House staff and the Service's White House detail were running high that year (1973),
culminating in the REMOVAL of Agent Robert S. [sic-H.] Taylor as head of the detail. Taylor's departure was prompted by a
rift between his detail and the Nixon staff [read Haldeman] concerning political priorities versus protective priorities".
Dr. Melanson discusses a plot to assassinate Nixon in New Orleans (Aug. 1973) --- Secret Service asked Nixon to cancel
motorcade; SS cancelled motorcade.
Chapter 5 (pp. 74-87)
James P. Kelly --- former Asst. Dir. of the SS. Kelly was also an investigator with the HSCA!
Chapter 6 (pp. 88-122)
p.99- On-the-road procedures; pp. 104-105- in case of attack- defense is the key; Secret Service training manual excerpts ---
i.e., "look for persons who are acting unnaturally ... look for unnatural appearance of places, OBJECTS [umbrellas?], and
situations".
Chapter 8 (pp. 137-159)
p.137- ".. there is no tradition of sacking the old Secret Service head when a new President takes office." (?)
This is simply not accurate. The record during the JFK through Nixon years speaks for itself:
1961- Rowley replaces Baughman;
1965- Youngblood replaces Behn;
1971- Youngblood ousted by H.R. Haldeman (replaced by ?[boggs?]);
1972- Knight replaces Rowley;
1973- Taylor and Duncan ousted by H.R. Haldeman
p.142- "It is an unwritten law in Mexican politics that presidents can never appear in public with any barrier between themselves
and their people- no bulletproof shields, no bubble-top cars, nothing" (?)
JFK in Mexico, Summer of 1962: agents surround car (Behn punches out a 'beatnik' spectator to boot) [this is NOT the
SX100]; using SX100, the bubble-top is ON the car AND agents are to the REAR of the limo...
JFK in Caracas, Venezuela and Bogota, Columbia, 1962: using SX100, the bubble-top is on and agents are riding on the back
of the limo...
p.143-"...the press knows that the president has the political clout to pressure the Service into loosening up (?)"
Rowley told the WC that "No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do", and Baughman wrote in his
book Secret Service Chief that the President knew that the Chief of the SS could countermand the Chief Executive when it
came to security precautions and considerations...
Melanson's title, The Politics of Protection, was adopted from Ken O'Donnell's remark to Jerry Behn, "politics and protection
don't mix." This is pure moonshine: they CAN and MUST! This title was also adopted by the HSCA for their equally shallow
chapter on the Secret Service.
Chapter 9 (pp. 160-181): "Losing Lancer: the Secret Service's Worst Crisis"
Here, Dr. Melanson relies on documents and Public Relations people, taken at face value.
His sources:
1.WC "Memorandum of Conference" 3/13/64, 3 pages;
2.CD3, part 1,12/18/63- memo from Dillon to Warren, Section III;
3.Rowley Report- WC file #22 "Records Relating to the Protection of the President";
4.other parts of CD3
p.160- Interference of Treasury Department lawyers with WC Report-
Melanson writes (albeit briefly) about Treasury Dept. interference in the WC 'investigation', a little known fact that can be
interpreted a few ways (like the agency's growth, the CIA help, and the training methods mentioned above).
Examples include Fred Smith interfering with Winston Lawson's WC testimony, and the question of why Rowley addressed a
report [with subheadings] to G. d'Andelot Belin, who he claimed was the General Counsel of the WC [he was not --- it was J.
Lee Rankin, a man who was already in frequent correspondence/communication with Rowley] --- did he mean DAVID Belin,
an assistant counsel of the WC [G. d'Andelot Belin was the General Counsel of the Treasury Department, and served as
ACTING Secretary of the Treasury when C. Douglas Dillon was out of the country during parts of 1963 and 1964]? [see 18
H 810-815.] In addition, was Belford V. Lawson III (the lawyer in charge of the Secret Service area of investigation for the
HSCA) any relation to WINSTON G. Lawson, the advance agent from Washington who was one of the major planners of
security in Dallas for 11/22/63?
p.161- Melanson's access to WC documents in the National Archives (see above )-
This may have been a big deal in 1984, but not in 1998 --- I have these documents!
p.162- The ever-popular "JFK-as-scapegoat" theme (ORIGINAL SS statements, Manchester, Bishop, WC, HSCA, etc. [it all
originated FROM the SS])-
Based on my many interviews/correspondence with 35+ former agents/White House aides, and the ten years passing since this
book (more information in public domain, etc.), this theme is absolutely FALSE --- SAIC Behn, ASAIC Boring, Sam Kinney,
Bob Lilley, and many others told me that JFK never ordered the agents to do anything and never interfered with their actions at
all (the only thing he would do was wade into crowds so people could shake his hand)! In addition, Kenny O'Donnell didn't
order them around, as far as security matters are concerned (whether he used them as butlers and 'go-fors', or even lookouts
[as JFK's romantic dalliances dictated] is another story altogether...)
"During a previous motorcade, Kennedy had made an exception and allowed his limousine to be flanked by police motorcycles,
because of a specific threat to his safety discovered in advance by the Service"-
What about the quality and quantity of FLANKING motorcycles in San Antonio, Houston, and Fort Worth on
11/21-11/22/63?!?! What about in Berlin and Ireland (June 1963)?! Talk to the agents (who told me JFK never said a thing
about motorcycles to begin with!) and look at the newsreels. For what it's worth, the absence of these flanking motorcycles in
Dallas on 11/22/63 by the Secret Service's orders was termed by the HSCA as being "UNIQUELY INSECURE". 'nuff said...
The agents-on-the-limo stories-
False. JFK NEVER ORDERED THE AGENTS TO GET OFF THE REAR OF HIS LIMO; even Dave Powers told me this!
(WHY the SS handed the WC 5 reports stating the opposite is another story --- the originators of these April 1964 reports ---
Behn and Boring --- totally refute them, as do many of their colleagues!)
The Bubbletop-
Although not bulletproof, several agents I spoke to said it WAS a deterent (it may deflect a bullet and/or blind an assassin's
view via the sun's glare...just the fact that most people believed it was bulletproof was protection enough --- if someone draws a
gun on you, would you say, "How do I know those aren't blanks in that thing?"). Most importantly, JFK DID NOT ORDER IT
OFF --- Sam Kinney told me it was his SOLE decision, one that both he and Bill Greer lived with regret for many years
afterward (Sam's report of 11/22/63 backs up his admission of sole responsibility).
Ken O'Donnell-
He did NOT order anyone in the Service to do anything, as far as security measures are concerned (and even if he did, he
would have been outmanned, outmanuevered, and outranked, as was the fate with H.R. Haldeman)
pp.162-163- "The president's protectors were not informed about the trip until political planning and publicity were well under
way. The idea [originated in] ... El Paso".
WRONG- Jerry Behn was WITH JFK, LBJ ,and CONNALLY in El Paso on 6/5/63 (as was the SX100 limo and many other
agents)! Also:
LBJ's April 1963 announcment of the trip which was carried in the newspapers;
9/26/63: official White House announcement (also in the newspapers);
10/4/63: Connally visits JFK in Oval Office- as if the SS wouldn't know about this (they installed and monitored the
taping system which was implemented and in full operation during JFK's administration, as well- SAIC of PRS Robert I.
Bouck, who I spoke with, installed and monitored the tapes from the EOB);
11/1/63: Connaly press conference;
11/4/63: ASAIC Boring notifies Lawson of the Dallas assignment (and the rest is history...)
pp.163-164- Only on 11/4/63, Melanson writes, did SS find out about the Dallas trip (?!) and Trade Mart decision-
While it is true that the Secret Service's SAIC of the Dallas office, Forrest V. Sorrels, was directed BY Behn, Connally was not
adamant about this building as the site for the luncheon- his itinerary called for the Statler Hilton Hotel, and he is also on record
as blaming the White House staff for this decision (O'Donnell). The Secret Service, which admitted that the Women's Building
was a better site security-wise, was the likely culprit in making sure that the Trade Mart WAS the luncheon site:
Rowley told the WC that Ken O'Donnell was to blame (just as O'Donnell was supposedly to blame for the removal of
the bubbletop!!! sure...). For the record, ODonnell denies confirming the Connally itinerary, as confirmed by fellow
advance man Jerry Bruno to James Reston,Jr. (He wanted the WOMEN'S BUILDING!). O'Donnell was also blamed
for LBJ's presence on AF!, but he vehemently denied this- it was a SS decision, as Mac Kilduff confirms;
Rowley also stated that fellow advance man Jack Puterbaugh had a hand in (relaying) this decision, an allegation
Puterbaugh DENIES-he had no involvement in this matter;
Lawson blamed fellow advance man Jerry Bruno for the Trade Mart decision- Bruno steadfastly denies this (He also
wanted the WOMEN'S BUILDING!);
According to Jerry Bruno, based off his 11/5/63 meeting with SAIC of WHD Jerry Behn, Behn also wanted the
WOMEN'S BUILDING- when Behn saw the catwalks in the Trade Mart (an excellent perch for snipers) , he said
"We'll NEVER go there!";
On the same day that Sorrels conversed with Behn's office on 11/4/63, Lawson also conferred with Behn's office about
the Trade Mart decision.However, unlike Sorrels, Lawson wasn't sure he actually SPOKE to Behn [4H337]- he DID
receive the Dallas assignment from the man who shared Behn's office, FLOYD BORING, the agent who was in charge
of the Dallas trip (and who was the primary source for the reports that went to the WC alleging JFK's "desires" in
removing the agents from the rear of the limo, although Boring, as previously noted, joined his many associates in refuting
these reports!)
Conclusion? - While it's hard to be definitive, due to the inordinate amount of passing the buck going on here (especially by the
Secret Service), it appears that, contrary to their knowledge that the Trade Mart was not as good as the Women's Building
from a security standpoint, the Secret Service (Boring?) paradoxically gave the green light (to Lawson?) in going forward with
the Trade Mart as JFK's luncheon speech site (which thus determined the speed of the route and the specific security of the
building) for reason or reasons not totally clear (unless one wishes to invoke a sinister explanation, in light of all the
aforementioned buck-passing). Finally, Bruno told the HSCA that he believed that the WOMEN's BUILDING was initially
selected as the final choice but, as HSCA Vol. XI pages 517-518 read," Bruno stated that the local agents in Dallas had
decided to withdraw their earlier objections to the Trade Mart [sA Steuart, SAIC Sorrels], and instead recommended it. If any
local agent did in fact make such recommendations despite Behn's prior decision on November 6 favoring the Women's
Building, this would have presented a clear case of a subordinate agent contradicting the SAIC of the White House Detail".
"The Trade Mart luncheon site dictated most of the motorcade route [true] , including passing through Dealey Plaza [probably
true] and in front of the TSBD".
Wrong- what about Main to Industrial?? And there WERE alternate routes (as Sam Kinney and Winston Lawson both told me
[Lawson also told the WC the same thing])...
"The final route was selected November 14".
Wrong- why were the Dallas newspapers still talking about other routes? Why were there ALTERNATE routes, then? Even
"officially", the route is usually fingered as being "selected" between 11/18 and 11/19/63 (as the two Dallas newspapers report
for 11/19/63), coinciding with the arrival on 11/18/63 of advance agent David Grant from the Florida trip (JFK's final trip
before the FINAL trip!). As LBJ aide Bill Moyers told the HSCA, it was AFTER the 11/18/63 meeting with the Secret Service
that he gave his associate Betty Harris (who was working WITH the Secret Service, too) the green light to print/publish the
motorcade route, which was ultimately based on this authority: what Moyers referred to as "the agent in charge of the Dallas
trip"!!! Was he referring to FLOYD BORING? In the end, it doesn't really matter WHO the specific agent was: Chief Rowley
told the Warren Commission (who, like some other people, took documents and testimony at face value) that the Secret
Service does NOT release selected routes of presidential motorcades to the press and they did NOT in Dallas, a blatant lie: his
own people did so! And it gets even better (or worse, depending on which way you look at it)...
Also p. 164- "The precise route was published ... on November 19".
While this is technically true, there is a devastating other side of the coin (and no, I don't mean the alternate routes):
SAIC BEHN TOLD ME THAT THE HSCA ASKED HIM IN EXECUTIVE SESSION 'WHY WAS THE ROUTE
CHANGED', AND BEHN TOLD ME IT WAS INDEED CHANGED, BUT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THE
SPECIFIC REASON WHY!
So, it appears that Gerald Posner and all the other sorry apologists for the Warren Commission and the Secret Service were
wrong all along- what a shame...
"There was no attempt to exercise any secrecy regarding the President's itinerary or the motorcade route"-
Mostly true, but it was the SECRET SERVICE who had a profound hand in these events, which Rowley had the audacity to
deny to the WC (see above).
11/18/63 meeting w/Sorrels, Lawson, and the Dallas PD.
No mention of Lawson's oft-forgotten partner, David B.Grant (typical).
"Police were to be assigned to each of the overpasses along the route to keep spectators off of them and thereby protect the
president's open limousine from being hit with any falling objects".
This was not adhered to in DEALEY PLAZA, despite Lawson's responsibility to see that it was done!
p.165- "Dallas police were shown, and given samples of, the color-coded lapel pins worn by the Secret Service".
Apparently they were shown much more than that- illicit Secret Service credentials made their way into Dealey Plaza, as
verified by the accounts of 3 police officers and 4 spectators, not including Lee Harvey Oswald himself, who told Secret
Service Inspector Thomas J. Kelley minutes before his own murder of running into an "agent" in front of the TSBD ... Gee, I
wonder who could have provided this identification in the first place (former agent Abe Bolden confirmed to me that it was
widely known in the Service that a 'lost or stolen' I.D. card found its way into Dealey Plaza, the prime motivator behind the
redesign of the Secret Service commission books in January of 1964)!
Standard line (by Dillon) about not watching the windows or checking buildings in advance or during the motorcades-
Lawson told the WC AND the HSCA it was his "usual practice" to have the men watch the windows, as part of their normal
scanning duties (DPD Captain Perdue Lawrence confirmed,sadly, that these orders were NOT given in Dallas). In addition,
Chief Inspector Michael W. Torina told William Manchester in 1961 that whenever a motorcade must slow for a turn (such as
the 120 degree, Secret Service-violating turn onto Elm Street, for example), the entire intersection must be checked in advance.
No wonder Dillon got to chair the Dillon Committee of 11/22/64 (to oversee the SS) and the Rockefeller Commission - if you
want a face value, superficial examination, he's your man...
pp.166-167- doesn't mention the highly, perhaps uniquely, unusual nature of both JFK and LBJ being in the same slow-moving
open vehicle parade together (which both Lawson [to the WC] and Bolden [to me] said was unusual), Kellerman's statement to
the FBI (later denied, of course), that "the security measures employed were among the most stringent and thorough ever
employed for the visit of a president to an American city", or DPD Curry's similar remarks which appeared in the Dallas papers
BEFORE the assassination in regard to his men and their coordination with the Secret Service...
The drinking incident of 11/21-11/22/63
Very good essay, following the lines of my research, however pp. 167-168-Rowley whitewash- Although the Secret Service
manual specifically and unequivocally states that drinking while in TRAVEL STATUS (not even while "on duty")is grounds for
removal from the agency, Rowley did not punish the offenders in any way whatsoever and his "claim...(was) based primarily
upon the finding that none of the nine agents were in a position to have performed any action that might have saved the
president, since none were in the pesident's car but ONLY (!) IN THE FOLLOW-UP CAR. ROWLEY TOLD THE
COMMISSION THAT THE AGENTS INVOLVED WERE AWARE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THEIR BREACH OF
CONDUCT AND WOULD NOT DO IT AGAIN"-
Clinton J. Hill (later to become SAIC of the WHD during the FORD years), Paul E. Landis, Jr., Glen A. Bennett, and John D.
Ready (the CLOSEST agent to JFK from the follow-up car)- none of these men could have prevented the assassination?!
What were they, then- merely hood ornaments? Also, who is Rowley fooling- they had a precedent for breaching conduct (as
Abe Bolden told me) and agents Marty Venker and Dennis V.N. McCarthy later wrote about drinking on duty and in travel
status committed by the agents during the 1970's and 1980's- give me a break! Finally, if not for the Secret Service's own fatal
decision in not having agents posted on the rear of the limo, holding the handrails, JFK probably would have lived, having only
received the non-fatal neck/back wound- the agents (particularly Ready) would have had 5 to 8 seconds to cover JFK before
the fatal/final shot (not to mention what already being posted there would have done to the psyche/confidence of the assassin or
assassins).If not for being intoxicated, Hill would not have arrived so damn late (it was Jackie who helped him- close study of
the Zapruder film shows that Hill never touched Jackie, the person he was assigned to protect; Ready was assigned to JFK's
side of the limo), and Ready would have made it in time.
p.169- As stated above, Hill did not push Jackie back into the car! Also, what is perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that
Emory Roberts, the SAIC of 'half-back', the follow-up car, ORDERED THE MEN NOT TO MOVE after recognizing the first
shot as gunfire (one of the few Dealey Plaza witnesses to do so- most described the first shot as sounding like a
firecracker,NOT a rifle blast)! Sam Kinney strangely confirmed this to me this year, and it's even in the reports of Ready and
Roberts that Emory did recall Ready back to the follow-up car when he attempted to aid the striken president, although this
was blamned on the speed of the limo [allegedly 20-25 mph] and the distance between both [approx. 25 feet], the limo was
actually slowing down to a Secret Service violating 11.2 mph (this is an AVERAGE- it could be even less during the head shot)
and the distance was only a scant 5 feet at the most (as verified in films/photos, Clint Hill's WC testimony, and Paul Landis'
report). Without proper leadership from commander Roberts-without even so much as a measely shout of alarm or alert- the
men on the follow-up car were further perplexed, and Roberts' bizarre order certainly did not help. Nevertheless, Hill took the
initiative despite these orders (which could be why he was late) and the early morning drinks (ANOTHER reason why he was
so late)- at least he tried (although he was assigned-like Landis- to the First Lady detail); I guess Ready "tried", too. But,
please- to give a medal to Hill?!
"There is no way to know whether any agent could possibly have reached the president, in the few seconds available [5.6 to
8+,depending on who you want to believe], in time to cover him or to somehow screen him from the final, fatal bullet..."
SEE ABOVE; also, what about limo driver Greer who, despite a direct order from his superior sitting in the front seat a few feet
away, does not speed up the car out of danger-in fact, Greer turned around not once but TWICE and can be seen in the
Zapruder film looking directly at JFK when the fatal, final shot makes its mark (Greer denied looking at the President, slowing
down, or turning back around [let alone twice] to the gullible Warren Commission under oath).The second turn around
happened AFTER Kellerman told Greer to get out of line; as Kellerman told Manchester, "Greer then looked back in the car.
Maybe he didn't believe me". Agent Marty Venker confirms what Mary Gallagher alludes to in My Life with Jacqueline
Kennedy (not to mention C. David Heymann's book)-Jackie blamed Greer for not speeding up in time to save Jack!
Kellerman, for his part, is no angel- why the hell didn't he at least TRY to get into the rear of the limo, something he admitted to
the WC that no obstacle-including those in the limo used as excuses- would have made any difference had he felt he was
needed back there (I guess he didn't "feel" the "need"...) Kellerman also claimed that JFK spoke ("My God! I am hit!" to the
WC, "Get me to a hospital", the original version to the FBI), something no one else-including medical science- admitted taking
place (JFK was shot thru the neck)! Finally, Kellerman claimed to have seen JFK reaching for a part of his back near the right
shoulder, an action not recorded on any film, photo, or eyewitness account. It's time to stop making excuses for these clowns...
p.170- "Of all the locations along the route, Dealey Plaza (Elm Street) had to rank as one of the most dangerous in terms of
possible sniper fire"-
No argument here.
p.171- "INSTEAD OF THE 20 TO 30 MILES PER HOUR WHICH THE SECRET SERVICE LIKED TO MAINTAIN,
the presidential limousine moved at only 11.2 miles per hour"-
No argument here, either. But why didn't the Secret Service (Greer) pick up speed? The parade was basically over and they
were heading toward the freeway and on to the Trade Mart; Kellerman said he began to relax here, while others conceded that
the parade WAS over --- is this why the assassination took place here (food for thought)?
Greer "had no special training..."
He was trained just fine; also, he had plenty of experience. Finally, who needs "special training" --- even a snot-nosed 16 year
old knows how to HIT THE GAS! Keep in mind that Greer DISOBEYED his superior's order to get out of line BEFORE the
head shot arrived.
More apologies continue:
"Secret Service procedure in operation at this time did not allow Greer to accelerate or take evasive action ON HIS OWN
INITIATIVE: he was supposed to wait for a command from his colleague seated next to him, Agent Kellerman".
Boy, did Melanson set himself up here: Rowley told the WC and Kelley told the HSCA that the drivers WERE given proper
trainig and instructions on what to do in this situation: Leave the area at once! Also, as stated above, he didn't need his own
initiative- Kellerman DID give him an order-what's the story?! Maybe Robert Snow should have told Melanson that Greer was
hard of hearing- he probably would have believed him!Melanson does somewhat redeem himself here, though: "But there was
no action of any kind taken by either agent (Greer or Kellerman) during the 6 to 7 seconds that limousine rolled down Elm
Street at a snail's pace".
No physical, protective action --- right. But they both claimed to the FBI to have manned the radio in order to get the limo to
the nearest hospital, among other things they later (conveniently) denied.
p.172- Clifton C. Carter was an LBJ aide, NOT an agent!
p.178-"In terms of protective performance during the shooting, THOUGH POLITICAL PRIORITIES HAD
PREDETERMINED MUCH OF THE SITUATION-AN OPEN CAR WITH NO AGENTS ALLOWED ON THE
RUNNING BOARDS-there appear to have been missed opportunities for immediate evasive and protective action that might
have contributed to saving the President's life".
Since EVERYTHING mentioned above were Secret Service decisions, the buck stops with them as to why THEY failed to
protect their charge on 11/22/63...
CONCLUSION: Although I have a lot of respect for Philip Melanson's work in general, he clearly dropped the ball here.
While the book is well-written and well developed, there is so much of a reliance on secondary sources and/or official
documents TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, that if one didn't know better, they would swear they were reading a booklet put out
by the U.S. Secret Service's own Public Affairs Department. It appears that Robert did a "snow job" on Melanson; it would be
like writing a book on RFK's assassination based on the statements and documents of the LAPD alone! By interviewing many
former agents (several of whom were most definitely "hostile witnesses") and by looking at documents with an objective,
SKEPTICAL eye, I have achieved in my own book what Melanson fails to do: reach honest conclusions that Public Affairs,
personnel Miss Gordon, Mr. Snow, and Jane Vezeris may not like. I guess you can't bite the hand that feeds you, so to speak;
by going through the front door ("Public Affairs") in researching his book, Melanson missed the truth sneaking out the back
door. BOTTOMLINE: worth it for the other, non-JFK chapters. As I stated, Prof. Melanson loved my review --- here is his
response: "Thank you for your exceedingly detailed and knowledgeable review/ rebuttal on The Politics of Protection. It is
very precise and thought provoking. Clearly, it would have strengthened my analysis to have critically interviewed agents but I
and my publisher [Praeger, the same one that put out his 1990 work "Spy Saga"] decided that for the first organizational portrait
of the service, secondary sources would suffice. I was also enmeshed in more important (to me) investigative activities on the
MLK and RFK assassinations and did not attempt to get to the bottom of the Secret Service's JFK role but only to raise
questions about it. Again, thank you for sharing the impressive breadth and detail of your knowledge of these matters." Prof.
Melanson echoed the same sentiments to me at the COPA conference in Washington, D.C., in October 1996. I sincerely
appreciate his candor with me.
* * *
Copyright © 1998, by Vincent M. Palamara
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/0047-VP.TXT
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
From Penn Jones "Forgive my Grief 111"...p..17..pub 1969..
"We first saw the uncropped James Altgens photograph in Harold Wiesberg's book "Whitewash".....which was published in 1965. We were puzzled at that time at the difference in the fast protection given the Vice President as opposed to the lack of action, except possibley a turned head, on the part of the Secret Service men charged with protecting President Kennedy. The Warren Commission cropped the Altgens picture so the American people could not see that Secret Service men assigned to protect the Vice President were leaving their car by the time President Kennedy had received the second shot... In the same picture, only two men guarding the President had even turned to look toward the School Book Depository Building.
The Vice President's backup car was driven by State Patrolman Joe H.Rich...Vice President aide Clifton C.Carter sat in the middle of the front seat with Secret Service man Jerry D.Kivett on Carter's right... Agent Len ( Lem) Johns and Warren Taylor were in the rear seat. Taylor on the left, had his door open when Atgens snapped his famous picture...( ** This is also seen in earlier Motorcade photos, and was so they say because there was not another convertible available that day .)
Johns, on the right, left the car and raced towards the Vice President, but the motorcade sped away and Johns was forced to hitchike to the hospital .(** after he checked out some of the areas in Dealey).
If one include Rufus Youngblood, three agents reacted to protect Johnson, while those charged with protecting the President only turned and gazed..""
For your information...
B....
-
Bumpers away......
-
Hi Peter..... Don:
Congratulations on your book, Don......much success..with all.
SSAIC :Emory Roberts lied not once but twice in his reports as well as covering up the drinking episode,
he stated the Queen Mary was 25 ft away from the President and also
stated they were going 20 to 25 miles an hour....
Rybka had just completed the SS course was young and sharp as a tack....also they were in charge of all
see previous post, evidence flow chart.....
....The President's SS agent who was his personal guard during the motorcade as was Hill
to protect Jackie, and I cannot
find his name right now, but am still looking,
was also left behind at Love by Roberts....One young and sharp and one directly appointed to take off and protect him...if needed....
The newspaper clipping is very old
and a poor copy, but it does make it clear, their knuckles were not even rapped....re the
drinking.epsisode.....
Makes one pause perhaps and think......
BREAKDOWN OF SECRET SERVICE HIERARCHY/ INFRASTRUCTURE
THE TOP TREASURY OFFICIALS:
1) C. DOUGLAS DILLON- Sec of the Treasury (former OSS) : on a Cabinet
plane bound for Japan via Hawaii with *
2) ASST. SEC. ROBERT A. WALLACE- with Rowley at a luncheon in D.C.;
denied dead agent reports;
3) ACTING SEC. G. d’ANDELOT BELIN- stepped in in Dillon’s absence
1963-1964 (related to David?);
4) [uNDERSEC. HENRY “JOE” H. FOWLER- replaced Dillon in Jan. 1965]
THE PRESS SECRETARIES:
1) *PRESS SECRETARY PIERRE SALINGER- code book missing from plane;
according to Pierre, only missed “two or three” trips (almost definitely
only one: Texas); extremely knowledgeable about motorcade planning/
security- worked with Secret Service on all prior advance work… except
for the Texas trip;
2) ASST. PRESS SEC. (#2) ANDREW HATCHER- in D.C. inactive (allegedly
because Hatcher was African-American, but a member of JFK's Secret
Service detail, Robert Faison, was also African-American and was with
President Kennedy throughout the Texas trip);
3) ASST. PRESS SEC. (#3) MALCOLM KILDUFF- first trip on his own:
official debut; essentially a non-player out of the loop;
THE CHIEF’S OFFICE:
1) CHIEF JAMES J. ROWLEY- with Wallace^;
2) DEPUTY CHIEF PAUL J. PATERNI- member of OSS during WWII- worked with
James Angleton and Ray Rocca (liaison to WC); involved in limousine
inspection with Boring, beating Rowley and Kellerman---and the FBI--- to
the punch (skull particles, bullet fragments, vehicle damage/
windshield); involved in LHO income tax check investigation right after
assassination; checked on CIA connections of suspects Mosley and Homer
Echevarria for the Chicago field office- matter was summarily dropped by
a call from headquarters telling the field office agents who spoke to
Paterni to send all memos, files, and notebooks to D.C. and not to
discuss the case with anyone!; Thomas Kelley- liaison to WC: assigned by
Paterni to go to Dallas and speak to LHO;
3) DEPUTY CHIEF EDWARD WILDY- totally out of the loop;..
THE TOP THREE AGENTS OF THE WHITE HOUSE DETAIL (THE SAIC’S OFFICE):
1) SAIC GERALD A. BEHN- in D.C. inactive: first full vacation in three
years under JFK;
2) ASAIC (#2) FLOYD M. BORING- in D.C. at home but IN CHARGE OF PLANNING
THE TEXAS TRIP [bishop, 1988 edition, p. 558; Truman Library Oral
History, p.63- on all the advance work…assigned to all the advance work;
JFK Library Oral History;interviews with Sam Kinney and Floyd Boring
1993-1994]; involved in limo inspection with Paterni, Trade Mart
decision, PRS checks, giving Lawson the Dallas assignment, etc.-
http://www.njmetronet.com/palamara/boring.html
3) ASAIC (#3) ROY H. KELLERMAN- First major trip on his own in a
supervisory capacity without either Behn OR Boring;
THE WHD ADVANCE AGENTS:
1) WINSTON G. LAWSON (LEAD CAR)- WHD advance agent (and former CIC
agent---still with the Former Intelligence Officers Association!): only
did advance work for a short time before Dallas;
2) DAVID B. GRANT (TRADE MART)- Lawson’s oft-forgotten partner from
11/13-11/22/63; physically joined Lawson in Dallas 11/18/63 from Florida
trip (manned by ASAIC Boring in place of Behn); Boring’s right hand man
for Chicago, Florida, and Texas advances;
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE ADVANCE MEN:
1) JERRY BRUNO- CHIEF DNC ADVANCE MAN: early organizer but not in
Dallas---adamantly against Trade Mart/ choice of route (out of the
loop);
2) MARTY UNDERWOOD- DNC ADVANCE MAN for Houston and Austin---adamantly
against choice of route. Heard rumors of impending
assassination---received confirmation of plot from CIA Officer Win Scott
shortly after assassination (out of the loop)!;
3) JACK PUTERBAUGH- DNC ADVANCE MAN for Dallas: IN PILOT CAR WITH LT.
COL GEORGE WHITMEYER- taught Army Intelligence, not originally scheduled
to be in motorcade. As for Puterbaugh himself, he denied any involvement
in the Tade mart decision he was subsequently “blamed” for. He is often
blamed for the motorcade route change, as well…
THE SHIFT LEADERS OF THE WHD (SAIC ASSISTANTS):
1) ATSAIC EMORY P. ROBERTS – in command of FOLLOW-UP CAR in Dallas:
ordered agent Henry J. Rybka back from rear of limo at Love Field,
ordered agents not to move after first shot on Elm Street, recalled
agent John Ready during/ shortly after one of the (head) shots. Usurps
Kellerman’s authority at Parkland Hospital;
2) ATSAIC STEWART G. STOUT, JR.- stationed at the TRADE MART (out of the
loop);
3) ATSAIC ARTHUR L. GODFREY- stationed in AUSTIN (also out of the loop);
THE V.P./ LBJ DETAIL:
1) SAIC OF LBJ DETAIL H. STUART KNIGHT- in D.C. inactive- transfer to
become effective 11/25/63 (out of the loop);
2) ASAIC (#2) RUFUS W. YOUNGBLOOD- LBJ’s car: listens to walkie-talkie
w/ LBJ---both Dave Powers & Ralph Yarborough denied that Youngblood ever
vaulted over the seat the way LBJ claimed;
MISC.:
1) PRS AGENT GLENN A. BENNETT- temporarily assigned to WHD: why did he
ride in the follow-up car (he was an administrator)---to monitor threat
subjects?-
http://www.mindcushion.com/jfk/anatomythreat.html
2) WILLIAM R. GREER- LIMO: slows limo, looks back at JFK twice, disobeys
Kellerman, etc.;
3) JOHN D. READY- neutralized by Roberts;
4) CLINTON J. HILL (ASSIGNED TO JACKIE)- disobeys Boring and Roberts by
riding on rear of limo four times before Elm St. AND by lunging for rear
of limo ON Elm Street;
PART TWO: FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC TRIPS INVOLVING MOTORCADES 1961-1963:
NORMAL SECURITY IN COMPARISON TO DALLAS-
1) agents on / near limo in Dealey Plaza/ Elm Street before/ during
shooting (up to/ inc. 11/18/63; Boring tells agents not to mount rear of
limo between 11/19 and 11/21, according to Clint Hill)- blamed on JFK!;
2) motorcycles- from upwards of 6 flanking units down to a measely 4
non-flanking units (11/18-11/22 Fort Worth; according to DPD, this
occure at the last minute: morning of 11/22+ meeting of 11/21 via SS/
Grant)- blamed on JFK!;
3) The Secret Service was knowledgable about prior/ existing threats of
11/2 [Chicago], 11/9 [Milteer/ Miami], and 11/18 [Tampa/ Miami]: Boring,
Grant, Bolden, Martineau, Kinney, etc. Remember PRS agent Bennett’s
mysterious placement in follow-up car on 11/22/63;
4) Protective Research Section (PRS): ZERO threats found for Dallas
trip, despite three known checks, Stevenson incident, Wanted for Treason
photos, and warnings to JFK: Senator William Fulbright, DNC advanceman
Marty Underwood, San Antonio Congressman Henry Gonzalez, etc.;
5) Deleted squad car (meeting of 11/21 between DPD and Secret Service/
Grant)
6) Motorcade route: two dangerous turns (90 and 120 degrees) involving
slow speeds in a warehouse district (TSBD)- changed between 11/18 and
11/19 in spite of at least two better/ alternate routes; driver- no
independent knowledge: had to follow the lead car;
7) Publication of route- by (and denied by) the Secret
Service---accomplished with the help of Betty Forsling Harris, Bill
Moyers, and “the agent in charge of the Dallas trip”!;
8) Vehicles out of original, numerical order- changed 11/22 at Love
Field;
9) Media (press busses), photographers (always in front- cancelled at
the last minute at Love Field), Cecil Stoughton ( rode near rear of
limo/ in follow-up car July to November 21, 1963), Godfrey McHugh, and
Ted Clifton- moved away from JFK/ limousine, against prior protocal /
motorcades. DMN photographer Tom Dillard. While confirming this last
minute cancellation, said this brought the press/ photographers “totally
out of the picture”!;
10) Omissions: Behn, Salinger (Hatcher), Knight, Bruno [Rowley, Dillon];
11) Trade Mart (VS. WOMEN’S BUILDING)- determined speed of cars,
motorcade route choices, and security of building---Secret Service had a
hand in this whole affair;
12) Sheriff Bill Decker (lead car)- order 11/22 not to participate…via a
call from D.C.?
13) Overpass crowded 11/22 in Dealey Plaza, against protocal;
14) Windows not watched 11/22, despite Lawson’s “usual instructions” to
do so;
15) ATSAIC Roberts: recall of SA Rybka at Love Field; recall of SA Ready
in the Plaza (SA Hill delay); order not to move; usurps Kellerman's
power at Parkland/ switch of allegiance;
16) Ambulances on standby- gone inc. “epileptic seizure” incident
12:25---five minutes before murder of JFK. Rike said his ambulance was
called to the Dealey Plaza area on several false alarms several days and
weeks before 11/22/63!;
17) No bubbletop- a protective device (shielded JFK via sun glare,
possible deflection, psychological deterrent)---often on car in partial
form, as well (just the rear piece, for example). Strange, multiple
responsibility [Harris, Lawson, Kellerman, Sorrels, O’Donnell, etc.];
ultimately, blamed on JFK (although it was Kinney’s sole/ regretted
decision)!;
18) JFK/LBJ: in same city in slow, open vehicles in close proximity to
each other---unique and quite a “no-no”;
19) Umbrella man- presence/ actions not noted about, written or oral
(cause for delay, confusion? Signal?). SS manual states that this is one
of many things to watch for!;
20) Special ordinance of 11/18 with DPD: permitted action against unruly
persons becoming involved with peaceful picketing---was this a loophole
designed to give plotters/ SS/ DPD some flexiblity to do certain things,
and not to do other things, regarding security?;
21) Greer: slows limo, 2 looks back, disobeys Kellerman; leads race to
Parkland ( despite contradictory radio transmissions of SS);
22) Marina captivity by SS;
23) Autopsy related: body, x-rays, photos, skull fragments, bullet
fragments---SS firmly in control of these crucial items of evidence;
24) CE399: in SS possession
25) Limo: in SS possession---soon after rebuilt, destroying moving crime
scene/ evidence;
26) “dead” agent---many media outlets reported this as fact, at
different times and in different ways (inc. location);
27) “SS” agents---phoney or REAL agents in the plaza;
28) drinking incident 11/21-11/22: inc. four agents who rode in the
follow-up car: Hill, Ready, Bennett, and Landis!;
Vince Palamara 4/11/99
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
-The "Nashville Banner" from 1/23/92 carried a report that a mortal
threat to President Kennedy s life was hushed up by the Secret Service
when JFK visited Nashville, TN, on 5/18/63. The information came from
Rep. Bob Clement, the son of former Governor Frank Clement, JFK's host
during his 1963 visit to the state (both Clements met JFK on this trip
[inc. is a photo from the trip depicting both the elder Clement and his
son]). At Overton High School, a man approached the president with a gun
underneath a sack---he was grabbed by the Secret Service and the
incident itself was kept quiet in order to keep from encouraging similar
scares [think of all the copycat school shootings there are today
because of media hype!]. Bob Clement said: "Back in those days, privacy
was easier to accomplish". The paper interviewed the widow of Paul
Doster, the former SAIC of the Nashville office who died in
1987)---although Paul did not mention the incident to her, she said:
"But, you ve got to remember, he was pretty secretive, even to me." For
his part, Agent Doster told the "Nashville Banner" back on 5/18/63 that
"a complete check of the entire motorcade route" was done (also, other
[police] officers were assigned atop the municipal terminal and other
buildings along the route. These men took their posts at 8 a.m. and
remained at their rooftop stations until the president and his party
passed . In addition, a helicopter was used, similar to its use on
11/21/63 in San Antonio, TX). Agents/ important personnel on this trip
inc. Salinger, Behn, Kellerman, Greer, Roberts, DeFreese, Duncan,
Chandler, Yeager, Nunn, O Leary, Grant, Sulliman, Lawson, Olsson,
Paolella, Burns, and DNC advance man Jerry Bruno;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNC ADVANCE MAN IN DALLAS:
Jack Puterbaugh, HSCA 4/14/78-
[RIF#1801008010069]
Advanced JFK in Duluth, Minnesota, Sept. 1963, and when he was a
candidate in 1960; "Since the Citizen's Council was footing the bill for the lunch,
they felt that they should determine the wheres and the whos";
11/12/63 w/ Lawson "Puterbaugh met Forrest Sorrels... and drove the alternative
motorcade routes with him"; "On November 22, Puterbaugh rode in the pilot car
[correct] w/ Agent Win Lawson [wrong!] ... THEY PULLED OVER AND LET THE MOTORCADE PASS."
DNC ADVANCE MAN IN HOUSTON (ALSO HAD THE AUSTIN ADVANCE):
Martin E. Underwood-
In an exclusive interview conducted on 10/9/92, the author
obtained thefollowing new information:
- Underwood became "an honorary Secret Service agent" and served
under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. While with LBJ, he became the
"aide in charge of the Secret Service." The advance man confirmed to this
author that JFK did not restrict agents from riding on the Presidential
limousine. Underwood told Harrison Livingstone: "There were so
many things that fell through in Dallas. Any advance man who had any
sense at all would never have taken him down that route." When
Livingstone commented that the route was changed, Underwood added: "Yeah, I
know. You don't take a guy down a route like that."("High Treason 2",
by HarryLivingstone, page 442)
- FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had a file on Underwood and,
according to the advance man, Hoover hid the Lee Harvey Oswald file from the
Secret Service;
- Underwood stated that the CIA, the FBI, and the mafia "knew
(JFK) was going to be hit" on 11/22/63 - this information came from his
direct contacts with CIA officer Win Scott, the Mexico City Station
Chief during Oswald's visit to that region! In addition, Underwood
stated that, eighteen hours before Kennedy's murder, "we were getting
all sorts of rumors that the President was going to be assassinated in
Dallas; there were no if's, and's, or but's about it." When Underwood
told JFK about these disturbing reports, the President merely said,
"Marty, you worry about me too much" (indeed, JFK told San Antonio
Congressman Henry Gonzalez on 11/21/63: "The Secret Service told me that they have
taken care of everything. There's nothing to worry about").
The reason why Underwood opened up to me is best expressed by
him: "Everyone who had anything to do with Dallas in any way - Kenny
O'Donnell, the Secret Service -they're practically all dead now.
I just think people should know the truth."
HEAD DNC ADVANCE MAN :
Jerry Bruno, HSCA 12/13/77-
[RIF# 180-10117-10264]
"advanced the Bogota, Columbia trip and one to Italy in 1963 as
well as an 11-state conservation trip which the President took before
going to Texas that year";
Bruno didn't like Trade Mart-catwalks... liked Women's Building;
before 11/22/63: "Cliff Carter asked Bruno if there was any truth to the rumor
that JFK WAS GOING TO DUMP LYNDON IN 1964. Bruno told him he didn't know.
The Johnson people were also afraid of the BOBBY BAKER investigation
and the effect it would have on Johnson remaining on the ticket.";
Bruno at White House, 11/5/63 w/ Behn-" O'Donnell, Behn, and
Brunodecided against the Trade Mart... Bruno does not remember talking
to Agent Winston Lawson of the WHD; he says he dealt mainly w/ Jerry
Behn and to this day he can't imagine what caused Behn to reverse
himself on the Trade Mart.";
"Kenny O'Donnell told Bruno that a local Secret Service agent in
Dallas (Sorrels?) [steuart?] told Jerry Behn that the SS now felt they
could protect the President at the Trade Mart.";
"Bruno told us there was friction between the FBI and the SS.
'They would never rely on each other. The SS would develop their own
local sources', he said... He said there were times when the SS agents
were LAX. Sometimes they'd say that they checked out a situation and
they would not have done so. Asked to comment about drinking after
hours, he said: "They were not 'one beer' drinkers. They could really put
it away', he said. He related an incident on the Naples trip where
an agent, whom he did not identify[ Berger?, whose name was
remembered twice at the Press Club 11/21-11/22/63 and who was mentioned in
Bruno's notes], pulled his gun on a hotel keeper who would not open a bar
late at night to serve them. This trip was in 1963[June or July] prior
to the Texas one."
http://www.jfk-assassination.net/palamara/ssrosters.html
We can see below how close they were in Willis....
B..
-
Hi Jack:
Newly updated version........B
Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi
A Not-Entirely-Positive Review by David W. Mantik, MD, PhD
Memorial Day, 2007
It is surely interesting how intelligent people can differ
in looking at the same evidence…
“Doggedness and the Talpiot Tomb,” James Tabor, May 22, 2007
Biographical Details
Vincent Boo-liosi (no “g” sound) was born on August 18, 1934. According to one web site, he is the third most famous person from Hibbing, Minnesota. After moving to California, he graduated from Hollywood High School.
Bugliosi (simply designated as B hereafter) graduated from of the University of Miami in Coral Cables, Florida (BA, 1956). Eight years later he received his law degree from UCLA (1964), where he was president of his graduating class. As a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, he successfully prosecuted Charles Manson and several other members of Manson’s "family" for the 1969 murders of Sharon Tate and six others. He lost only one of the 106 felony cases he tried as a prosecutor, which included winning 21 out of 21 murder cases. He later wrote a book about the Manson trial called Helter Skelter. B has been outspoken in the media about the incompetence and/or malfeasance of lawyers and judges in major trials. He wrote a bestselling book, Outrage, on the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, in which he detailed the work of the district attorney, prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and presiding judge and illustrated what he saw as broader problems in American criminal justice, the media, and the political appointment of judges. He also condemned the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jones vs. Clinton and in the 2000 presidential election. He wrote a lengthy criticism of the decision in an article for The Nation titled "None Dare Call It Treason," which was later expanded into a book titled The Betrayal of America. Some of his criticisms are portrayed in the 2004 documentary Orwell Rolls in his Grave.
B is also an expert on the JFK and RFK assassinations. His book, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F Kennedy, was released in May 2007. That book is the subject of this review. It contains 1612 numbered pages, an introduction (xlvii pages), plus a CD of Endnotes (958 pages) and Source Notes (170 pages); it is literally bursting with second-hand information. Its total page count would appear to be about 2786, almost exactly three times as long as the 888-page Warren Report.
B is of Italian ancestry, married, and has two children, Wendy and Vince Jr. Like many characters in JFK assassination research today, he is an agnostic (in matters of religion, but not regarding the assassination) although he is open to the ideas of deism (but not to those of conspiracy).
Though I have not read Helter Skelter (the subject bored me) my wife loved it, while I thoroughly enjoyed And the Sea Will Tell (also a 1991 TV movie with Richard Crenna), which B kindly autographed for my nurse. I have also been a great fan of Outrage and his critique of the Supreme Court for putting us in the Bush leagues. (Everyone knows that our current Bush is a former major league baseball owner.)
A Personal Encounter
On a lovely Sunday morning, I knocked on the front door of B’s corner house, a modest, but charming affair, located very near the Arroyo Seco, home to the Rose Bowl. Because he had written to me about my work, I was curious to meet him in the flesh. While en route to see my son at Occidental College, I decided that the time had come to pay him a personal, albeit unannounced, visit. The door was quickly answered by B. After an initial puzzled expression, he immediately waved me in, with all the old country charm one would expect from a fellow Midwesterner. He was warm, courtly, and gracious, quite unlike his writing. After this encounter I understood why he had been president of his law school class. Following introductions to his wife, we sat together with drinks at the kitchen table, a la Nixon and Khrushchev (July 24, 1959). The conversation was congenial though not substantive. I was able to ascertain that he had indeed received the requested information from me. Most especially he had “Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits,” a summary of my work at the National Archives.
An Immediate Disaster for B
According to Max Holland, B’s stamina for setting the record straight (on the assassination) is unequalled and will probably never be surpassed. After all, who else would be heroic enough—some would say foolhardy enough—to give birth to a book that weighs nearly as much as a newborn? It is likely that this book will stand forever as the magnum opus of this case—though not without serious flaws. Holland implies that its length makes it especially vulnerable to factual errors. I would liken the book to a house held aloft by a multitude of stilts. The more such posts are required, the more likely it is that one of them will fail. Unfortunately for B, that has already happened. I refer, of course, to the neutron activation analysis (NAA) work, which was strongly supported by B in his book. See Dr. Gary Aguilar’s transparent and extremely well-written summary of this subject. Aguilar cites the very latest on this subject, including a statistical paper just published in the Annals of Applied Statistics by former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A & M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman, William D. James and colleagues. The first major salvo across the deck had been fired not long before by Patrick M. Grant, Ph.D. and Erich Randich, Ph.D. in the Journal of Forensic Science. I had the great pleasure of hearing Grant and Randich present their findings to a small group in San Francisco last summer at a Saturday seminar arranged by Dr. Aguilar. Their findings left no doubt that Robert Blakey’s so-called scientific “linch pin” of the assassination had totally exploded in his face. If any doubt remained after Grant and Randich, this latest paper has inexorably vaporized that scintilla. Sturdivan and Rahn (B’s favorites) can massage and squeeze Guinn’s original data all they want, using one statistical test after anther, but nothing can save them. It’s a simple matter of garbage in, garbage out. Guinn’s data are the problem—they are simply inadequate to the task, as has now been demonstrated twice over, by well respected, even-handed scientists. The problem now for B, of course, is that when one supporting pillar has been so thoroughly—and immediately—demolished, one can only wonder what other pillars are already infested with termites. Another not-so-minor point is this: After all is said and done,
everyone now knows, totally contrary to B’s repeated expostulations,
that he is sometimes wrong—even if he won’t admit it!
The problem, as we shall amply soon see, is that he wears permanent blinders, particularly when it comes to experts, and especially so for those from science.
How Can the Truth Be Known?
In 1959, C. P. Snow, a physicist and a literary man, gave his brilliant Rede Lecture, which was then published as The Two Cultures (a Second Look was added in 1963). His message was straightforward: a huge, unbridgeable chasm had grown between the scientists and the literati, so much so that neither understood the most basic knowledge of the other. The scientists did not know their Shakespeare and the literati could not even define mass or acceleration, let alone the second law of thermodynamics. Occupying both of these worlds at once, days in physics and evenings in literature (with famous individuals), Snow was acutely aware of this chasm. Lawyers would not usually be classified with the literati, but Snow did raise the possibility of a third culture (or even
more). The point remains—the gap between different specialties in the modern world is still wide, perhaps wider than ever, as Alan Sokal has proven.
As I see it, the fundamental difference between scientists and lawyers lies in epistemology—i.e., how does one define, or even find, truth? For lawyers, steeped in the adversarial system, the answer is clear-cut: use expert witnesses, and then let a jury vote. For a scientist, the very notion of a debate, and then a vote on truth, would be absurd, simply laughed out of court in a nanosecond. Instead, the scientist would set up a controlled experiment, perform multiple measurements, and then publish his results in a peer reviewed journal. But for his work to be accepted as part of the scientific corpus, it would likely be repeated several times over by independent groups. So, how can these two approaches be reconciled? In fact, they can’t. It is surely encouraging, though, that the legal profession has taken seriously the question of who can qualify as an expert. This has been a useful improvement in the adversarial process, though we are not likely at the end of that road. In summary, we remain stuck today with these two widely different approaches to truth. Insofar as B goes, it is surely germane to note here his own confession: he avoided high school physics. In the context of his discussion with his namesake, Dr. Vincent Guinn (about JFK’s head snap), it would appear that B never took any physics anywhere. If he had, this would have been the time and place to say so. On the contrary, silence is all we hear.
A Few Kind Words for B
B’s book represents a massive, even prodigious, outpouring of work. One must be either mad or a genius to wallow for 20 years in such an interminable project. B appears to be a wonderful admixture of both. His writing style is generally lucid. Although I often found his logic jolting, the book was fairly easy to read. I often grumble about authors’ avoidable ambiguities, but B, for the most part, sidesteps these. Also, to his credit, I was able quickly to learn more about several details of the case that I had not previously had time to pursue. A long time ago, I tried Conspiracy of One; I don’t think I ever finished it because it seemed so ludicrous. Posner was another matter. His book is the only one, about any subject, that I have ever stopped reading because honesty did not seem his strong suit. B’s book is totally unlike either. In its own way, it is a masterpiece—a truly brilliant prosecutorial brief. In the end, though, the question is whether that is what we want—or need—at this stage of the case.
And Some That Aren’t So Kind
B’s style is relentless, inexorable, invincible (a pale pun), and ultimately brutal. Scarcely anyone—friend or foe—comes off well. Nearly all, possibly except for the Warren Commission (WC), emerge smelling like sewer rats. Although he defends his right to attack wrong-headed ideas (who would argue?) he never quite explains why it is necessary to fire off one ad hominem salvo after another. Regarding such attacks, Snow himself was blindsided by his share. His response was as follows:
It seems to me that engaging in immediate debate on each specific point closes
one’s own mind for good and all. Debating gives most of us much more
psychological satisfaction than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever
chance there is of getting closer to the truth. It seems preferable to me to sit back
and let what has been said sink in…
B’s approach reminded me of a bulldozer in a garbage pile. Never mind anything, just plow straight ahead, crunching whatever lies below and ahead, and clear a path to the other side. At this, he is unsurpassed. After he is done, the road is indeed clear, but who would want to follow such a path? As Max Holland insightfully stated, “He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right.” I found that comment a little scary—as most scientific types would. In addition, on a personal level, I found his unrelenting attacks (on just about everyone) quite vexing and distracting, even uncivil, a quality that B in person clearly does not display. I had considered compiling an astonishing list of pejoratives simply for effect, but the reader will find them easily enough. No scientific treatise would permit a single one of these.
Chief among these is the phrase “conspiracy theorist,” which seems to assault one’s eyes from almost every page. (Someone should count them all.) B tries to defend his incessant use of this phrase, though this discussion comes astonishingly late in the book and only as a footnote. He specifically indicates that he uses “WC critic” and conspiracy theorist” somewhat interchangeably, not because they are linguistically so, he says, but because they essentially are (interchangeable). Given his maniacal devotion to this phrase, an explication within the first few pages of his book would have been wise. B admits that it is possible to be a WC critic without being a conspiracy theorist, but he insists that because most critics (almost inevitably, in my view) have some non-WC notion of historical events in this case he is therefore permitted to paint them as theorists. One wonders, in particular, how kindly Harold Weisberg would have taken to such logic and to such a pejorative, particularly in view of B’s direct quote from Weisberg about what his (Weisberg’s) position was. Furthermore, B’s favorite phrase is used in a totally one-sided fashion: a computer search through the entire book yielded not a single use of the corresponding phrase “lone gunman theorist.” In no other way does B so clearly display his hostile—even scornful—attitude toward the critics. (Though the word ultimately does not fit, “screed” often popped into my head as I read.) Those on B’s side are dignified by “assassinologist” or “researcher” or “student of the assassination,” but never as theorists. Only those opposed to him can qualify as theorists. To a physicist, this is a particularly anomalous—even bizarre—use of the word. In general, physicists are divided between theorists and experimentalists. As C. P. Snow notes, the former generally talk only to themselves and to God. I don’t think that such sublime conversation is what B had in mind though.
Some Misgivings about B’s Thinking
B dispenses a few rare, kind words about our three books (edited by James Fetzer) as “…perhaps the only exclusively scientific books (three) on the assassination.” However, nowhere in these three books, or elsewhere in my writing, have I personally indicated who did it. This matters not a whit. I, too, have now been spray painted with this phrase. On the contrary, in these three books my chief goal had been to collect data, including hundreds of measured points on the JFK autopsy X-rays. If B absolutely must describe me with his C-word, perhaps he might creatively have called me a “conspiracy experimentalist.” Instead, we are all indiscriminately lumped together as “conspiracy theorists.” Unlike Old Abe, he is a lumper, not a splitter. I truly doubt that he explored each person’s history to determine whether they truly had an overall theory of the assassination—or even to what degree; he clearly did not do that for Weisberg. It was obviously more important for him to paint one and all with the same broad strokes of his prosecutor’s brush. This, too, reeks more of the courtroom than of the laboratory.
Is This Book Scientific?
If one is looking for a scientific treatise on the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History is not the place to look. To cite the NAA work again as an example par excellence, B disposes of Grant and Randich’s work chiefly by the simple expedient of quoting a long letter from Sturdivan. To a T, this exemplifies the lawyer’s reflexive approach to evidence: introduce your expert witness, and then let the matter rest. B truly has neither the time nor space to address these issues in the detail that they require, though it is unfortunate that Aguilar’s short piece came too late to publish side by side with Sturdivan’s. That would have balanced the ledger a good bit.
So where does that leave B vis-à-vis the science in his book? For a layman he has struggled heroically first to understand and then to explain matters for his readers. And he has done this as well as could be expected of any layman. Though B will feel quite nauseous at reading this, he has already been preceded by two who have shown how well the medical evidence in particular can be mastered by laymen—Douglas Horne and Jeremy Gunn, of the Assassination Records Review Board (AARB). No one before them in any governmental situation had shown such a command of this evidence. Though he would never deign to shake their hands, B has also now been promoted to this group of well-informed laymen. As would be expected, he sometimes misuses medical terms (and even misunderstands what I know), but overall he communicates these issues well, though we often disagree profoundly on interpretation. Whenever possible, though, he prefers simply to quote the experts who side with him, especially those from the WC and House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Of course, that’s precisely what we should expect: lawyers are paid for presenting the experts, not for presenting the evidence. B rarely shows much originality or personal ability to analyze the medical or scientific data. In essence, he operates with a crutch virtually all of the time—without these experts at his side he is a near cripple. As for me, coming from a scientific background, and being thoroughly familiar with virtually all of this JFK (medical and scientific) evidence, I found B’s myopic and closed-minded view of this critical data acutely disappointing. How can one dialogue with a lawyer who hides behind his chosen experts? Somehow, from such a brilliant mind, I had hoped for more. It was, of course, unreasonable of me. The gap between the different cultures is simply too large.
He also seems not to understand the nature of scientific argument or proof. A good example of this is the so-called upward bullet trail through JFK’s neck (which cannot be true as he describes it). To his credit, he honestly implies that it took about an hour for him to grasp this concept, but finally, by use of his hand and finger, he got it. In physics, as a first step to a new concept, physicists often resort to what they call “hand-waving” arguments. Quite ironically in this case, B, in every sense of the word, has resorted to just such a finger-waving process—but as a proof, not just as a first step! And that is where he leaves it. Of course, no scientist would do that. On the contrary, a scientist would describe this first step as a heuristic approach, only useful to start in the right direction. Instead, he would estimate the upward angle through JFK’s neck, then estimate the thickness of JFK’s neck, locate the entry and exit levels (in the vertical direction), add a range of error for each of these and then finally calculate whether the numbers made any quantitative sense. Until then our model scientist would proclaim gross ignorance about his conclusion. Not so for B—a qualitative answer is the end of his science. Again, really though, what more should we have expected? This is, after all, the courtroom.
What About That 60-Second Proof?
And what about B’s self-described and marvelous one-minute proof before the crowd of 600 trial lawyers? Did he really make his case that the attorneys were being irrational to have an opinion on the JFK case—merely because they had not read the entire Warren Report? Suppose instead that he had asked how many believed in the atomic theory of matter? Would he likewise have demanded the reading of Einstein’s seminal 1905 paper on Brownian motion? Or what if he had asked whether they believed that FDR had deliberately permitted the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? If anyone believed either side of this question, would he still have insisted that they must have read all nine official investigations of this controversy before coming to a decision? And if one is required to read the Warren Report before having an opinion, why stop there? Why not also insist on reading at least the initial volume of the HSCA? Where does this end? If he weren’t so unbalanced, B might also have suggested that the trial lawyers read the report of the Church Committee. In fact, both the HSCA and the Church Committee found the WC in serious error on significant points. In his pioneering work on this question of second-hand information, Patrick Wilson of Berkeley emphasized a universal truth: anyone’s own knowledge of the world, beyond his immediate life, is only what others have told him—either personally or via the varieties of the media. In fact, the vast majority of our strongly held beliefs are of that nature. No one has the time or interest to check all of this out. In fact, only the tiniest percentage of our second-hand knowledge is ever cross checked. I wonder why no one among all of those 600 trial lawyers—surely not a bashful group—had the courage to challenge B on this fundamental issue. But I think I know—B was the authority figure, and if trial lawyers have learned one thing it is to recognize such figures, and then genuflect as needed.
Shakespeare (revised) on Lawyers
One commodity was in generous supply for the WC and for the HSCA—lawyers. Lawyers organized the agenda—just look at the Table of Contents for the Warren Report. Lawyers guided the research and they wrote the conclusions. Science, when present at all, played only a consultative role (just like the adversarial system with its expert witnesses). But there is an alternate model. For a later official, presidential investigation (the Challenger disaster), Nobel Laureate and physicist Richard Feynman escaped from the lawyer’s zoo. Almost single-handedly, and with single-minded zeal—a contemporary Sherlock Holmes—he pursued the evidence until that magical denouement on television. With the world watching, he showed how the O-ring would not deform normally after simply being dunked into a glass of ice water. Even after all of this, though, his personal written report was not welcome in the final publication—the lawyers still had their own agenda. Feynman even had to send a telegram to the lawyers in which he threatened to remove his signature from their final report unless his personal report appeared “…without modification from version #23.” In view of C. P. Snow’s literary interests, perhaps Shakespeare deserves his only brief, candle-lit appearance on my stage:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in our lawyers, that we are underlings.
At Last, to the Evidence
At my suggestion, Jim Fetzer wrote to B (January 23, 2001): “What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy and cover-up in the death of JFK?” And also, “Are none of our major discoveries—our ‘16 smoking guns,’ for example—convincing? And, if not, why? And, if not, what would it take?” B’s answer was simple: “Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence.”
Given those booming, opening sentences to this entire section of his book, I naturally had anticipated that B would, at last, address all of our issues in great detail. Was I wrong! Despite these cheery, introductory accolades, it was mostly evasion—authentic discussion of our paradoxes was, by and large, quite off limits. There was a lot of palaver about many other things but little at all about the central 16—or my 20 Conclusions. In one footnote there was more discussion about JFK’s clothing (which I have seen more than once at the Archives), and who had supplied it, than nearly any single one of our challenges to him. There are even 16 pages of desultory discussion of Oswald’s motive.
B’s chief claim for his book appears to be this quote:
… although there have been hundreds of books on the assassination, no book has even attempted to be a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the entire [sic] case, including all of the major conspiracy theories.
Although he does not explicitly say that his book meets this description, it is very hard to avoid the implication that that is exactly what he means. And, if not in fact, that is surely the book he wanted to write. This is an overweening claim. In fact, his fellow WC true believer, Max Holland, states: “Some might regard this as a foolish errand because there is no end to it, a fact that B readily acknowledges.” I would have been much more sympathetic had he tried to cover even most of the medical and scientific evidence—even while leaving aside most of the conspiracy theories. In the process of sifting and winnowing his subject matter, rather large mountains in the medical and scientific arena were left unvisited. Surprisingly, among these lie most of the “Twenty Conclusions in Nine Visits,” cited above. This was one particular item that B had requested of me and which had been supplied to him. He does cite it—but we don’t get much further than that.
I turn next to those issues largely left as terra incognita by B. In view of his personal lack of scientific expertise, it was probably wise for him not to venture into these foreign lands. I was more than astonished though that he did not even acknowledge that these paradoxes remained mostly off his map—after all, he did promise from the beginning that he would be honest and thorough.
Central Paradoxes Studiously (and Wisely) Evaded by B
(Note: Many pertinent images for the discussion below are at the website for my
Pittsburgh lecture. Just Google: Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits.)
“…the Commission’s fiercest critics have not been able to produce any new credible evidence that would in any way justify a different conclusion.”
“One advantage of being a conspiracy theorist is that you don’t need any evidence to
support your charge.”
“…with the allegation of planted evidence, the other main conspiracy argument…is that much of the evidence against Oswald was forged or tampered with by authorities. But not once have theorists ever proved this allegation.”
“I will not knowingly omit or distort anything.”
1. The huge clash between the lateral X-rays and the brain photographs persists. Although I should not expect B to deal with optical densities, this matter can be addressed at a layman’s level, via the obvious blackness at the front of the lateral X-rays. A fist-sized area shows virtually no brain at all. Although the OD measurements confirm this, simple visual inspection clearly supports the same conclusion. Besides the empty bilateral frontal area, though, a great deal of brain tissue is obviously missing on the superior right side as well. The brain photographs, on the other hand, show a nearly intact brain on both sides. Therefore: either the X-rays are wrong or the photographs are of some other brain. To date, as far as I know, no one has yet had the courage to address this central conundrum. B’s usual response at such a juncture is simply to invoke common sense, one of his unwavering allies throughout the book: i.e., such and such is simply impossible because common sense tells us so. (We could efficiently employ minds such as this in science; it would bypass a great deal of expensive research.) This paradox, especially via the OD data, is what prompted me to think that we were dealing with two different brains, a point that apparently made joke of the day for B. (For me, though, the likely fact that someone had substituted a brain in this case did not seem humorous at all.) I would furthermore emphasize, most strongly and contrary to B’s claim, that it was not Horne’s two-brain hypothesis that sent me down this path, but rather the evidence in the skull X-rays, evidence that I had measured long before Horne’s proposal (which I accept).
2. The constraints of cross sectional anatomy on a CT scan still seem insurmountable for the trajectory of the magic bullet through JFK. This paradox is included in Fetzer’s 16 points and has been extensively discussed elsewhere.
3. The pathologists’ bizarre misplacement of the trajectory trail (they claimed it extended from the occipital protuberance to the supra-orbital area, but it’s actually about 10 cm more superior) in their autopsy protocol cannot be explained by B, no matter where he points his finger or what emotional or psychological arguments he uses. The pathologists had their moment with the ARRB to resolve this—and they could not. At the autopsy, in order to avoid two separate head shots, they had no choice but to ignore the obvious, much higher trail on the skull X-rays—in the face of a lower, occipital entry that their fingers and eyes confirmed (and which I accept). While they stared at the X-rays that night, they surely recognized the evidence for two bullets (to the head). Even my son, at age 10, would not have missed this obvious conclusion. But, of course, they had not really misunderstood this basic evidence—instead they intentionally misstated it. They had been thoroughly boxed in.
4. The WC bullet that traversed the skull is another impossible conundrum. According to the WC (and to
this same bullet left part of itself on the skull surface near the cowlick area. According to the 6.5 mm object on the frontal X-ray, this had to be a nearly complete cross section from inside the bullet (not from the tip or base—which both were found inside the limousine). Even the HSCA ballistics expert, Sturdivan, insists that, based on his tens of thousands of cases, this cannot be a piece of authentic metal from a bullet. To make matters worse, one large fragment had its metal jacket bent way back. Without striking an object like concrete (e.g., the street) or other metal this is almost unimaginable. 5. No matter how many words, paragraphs, or excuses he employs, B cannot erase the radical disagreement between the eyewitnesses and the photographs of the back of the head. This issue has been extensively reviewed elsewhere, including photographs. To a physician these are overwhelmingly powerful.
6. CE-843. These are two small lead fragments still located at the National Archives. I have personally observed them. They purportedly came from the right supraorbital area, where the pathologists removed some metal fragments. The larger of these two is easy to see on any print of the lateral or AP skull X-rays (it’s about 7 x 2 x 2 mm). In fact, this latter fragment is nowhere near the shape (and probably not the size either) of the supposedly identical fragment now in the Archives. That one is about 2 x 3 x 2 mm (tiny) and shaped like a poppy flower with a large V-shaped notch taken out of the top (wider) end. No interval testing should so have morphed its appearance. No WC supporter has ever successfully explained this anomaly.
7. At the Archives, multiple bullet fragments are clearly visible on the left side of the skull X-rays. One of these is large enough to be seen easily on extant prints of the X-rays. No WC supporter has ever explained these troublesome deviants.
8. The 6.5 mm fragment. By eight separate and consistent lines of evidence, the optical density data show that this object was later added to the AP skull X-ray. This was a simple feat in that era. Furthermore, it could be performed, at a leisurely pace, in the secrecy of the darkroom. B’s only real response to this proposal is to ask why a real piece of metal was not used instead. Either he still does not understand how the darkroom work was done, or he is here imagining some confederate in the autopsy room, at a moment’s notice, running out to find a thin cross section of a 6.5 mm bullet, then running back and sticking it on the back of the skull—at precisely the right spot, all the while no one in the autopsy room noticed. B’s only other response is to quote (only in footnotes) correspondence from two other individuals, neither of whom have ever explained the uncanny spatial correlation between the object seen near the cowlick (on the lateral) and the 6.5 mm object (on the AP). So, in the end, B is left almost empty-handed, with only some baseless speculations and some semantic confusion between “artifact” and artificial.” Here again, of course, is the lawyer at work: merely quote an “expert,” but don’t offer an original idea of your own.
9. A pair of large format (4 x 5 inch) color transparencies (from the autopsy) of the back are inconsistent. Just superior to the fourth knuckle one of them shows a dark area (probably a blood spot), just where the other member of the pair shows a white spot. Although these observations individually mean nothing, the mere fact that they are different from one another means everything! At least one of them cannot be an original—despite what B claims, or what the National Archives claims or what the HSCA concluded. Given a chance, anyone could see this with their own eyes. In fact, no one has even noticed this before! Furthermore, one of the color prints (supposedly descended from the originals) has no parent in the color transparency set! It is an orphan—so how did it get into the set? Despite B’s persistent claims that everything is kosher with these autopsy photographs and X-rays, that cannot be true. Something is indeed wrong, very wrong, with the autopsy photographs. Let me spell this out: if B had really wanted to address these autopsy issues he should have gone to the Archives himself. What good is second-hand information when first hand-information is accessible?
10. Stereoscopic viewing of the back of the head is definitely not all kosher either, despite B’s second-hand claims. There is something very wrong with the back of the head photographs—and it’s precisely where the disagreement between the witnesses and the photographs is at its worst. The shiny part of the hair that looks so freshly washed (it wasn’t according to the autopsy witnesses) is exactly where the image is two dimensional with stereo viewing. Of course, that’s exactly what one should expect if a soft matte insert had been used here to cover the posterior hole that virtually everyone saw, both at Parkland and at Bethesda. I tried looking at this area every which way—switching photos left to right, rotating them, and even looking at pairs of color prints and then pairs of color transparencies and then pairs in black and white. It was always the same—a flat, two-dimensional image inevitably appeared, just where one would expect image alteration. Also quite strikingly, this effect was not seen for any other views of the hair. Although B claims that the HSCA observers established with “…absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered…” via stereo viewing, it’s just no good relying on others for such things. That is not the way of science. B really should have looked at this himself.
11. Since he is so highly credentialed and famous (think O. J. Simpson and forensic shows on TV), B likes to cite Dr. Michael Baden, who is indeed a wonderful specialist (and I liked his TV shows). Unfortunately, however, he was quite wrong about the missing bone at the skull vertex, especially anterior to the coronal suture. That missing frontal bone is quite obvious on the X-rays (and even on Boswell’s sketches); even Dr. J. Lawrence Angel, the physical anthropologist, disagreed with Baden’s reconstruction. My point here though goes well beyond that. With John Hunt’s recent, remarkable discovery of the X-ray image of the Harper fragment (in the National Archives) we now know that there was metal at one small site on this bone. The photographs show that this metal was not on the inside, but rather on the outside. If only one headshot is accepted, then that metal debris on the Harper fragment (remember—it’s on the outside) must necessarily derive from the entry that the pathologists identified. Once that is granted, then the Harper fragment itself becomes the missing bone at the rear (or, more likely, just a part of the entire defect), just where the HSCA denied that there was a hole. You can see all of this in my reconstructed skull.
12. B claims that the ARRB found no smoking guns. That is surely open to debate, much of which I leave to other critics. For my part, Humes and Boswell were caught with smoking guns in their holsters. On a related matter, though, my independent discovery of the large T-shaped inscription on the extant, left lateral skull X-ray occurred after the ARRB had expired. (See the image in my on-line Pittsburg lecture.) The fact that the emulsion is intact over this inscription, when it clearly should be visibly absent, is immediate proof that this X-ray must be a copy, rather than an original. I found this observation so direct and so revolutionary that I described it, somewhat tongue-in-cheek for my Jewish friends, as a burning bush rather than a smoking gun. This X-ray also has two other odd features: a) there are no Kodak identification numbers anywhere on it and
it is not available to the public. So the question that all of those true believers should pose to me this is: Can Mantik distinguish a duplicate X-ray from an original, in particular when a large area of emulsion (that T-shaped area) has obviously been scraped off the original (but not the copy)? If I can’t, then they should cross this item off my list. However, I am very certain that I can—and no one has suggested that I am so inept that I cannot distinguish an original (with missing emulsion) from a copy (with no missing emulsion). This is the worst possible news for WC supporters. It means that the original has gone missing. More importantly, though, it means that the extant X-ray (the one now in the Archives)—because it is a copy—could have been altered in any number of ways in the darkroom. I have amply demonstrated this possibility with my birdbrain X-rays, skulls with bullet debris added, and one even showing a scissors inside the skull. But, for this simple observation (of intact emulsion), my skills are not even required. Anyone with proper vision could see for themselves that the emulsion (over the T-shaped inscription) is not missing (as it must be for an original) from the left lateral skull X-ray in the Archives.Now B’s response to all of this might well be that these issues were addressed and resolved by prior experts, which is, of course, nowhere near the truth. Or, perhaps more likely, he would say: I already know from the Oswald evidence that he was as guilty as sin, so I don’t really need to address all of these issues. In fact, he employs that very argument in various guises quite often. I was a bit stunned by this type of logic. Outside of the fields of logic, mathematics and science, I really don’t think I had seen it before—certainly not for evaluating forensic evidence. Are only trial lawyers capable of such magical feats? What if Henri Becquerel had reacted similarly to the first hint of radioactivity in his photographic film wrapped around uranium salts? What if he had said that a lifetime of experience had proven to him that such things were impossible? Numerous, similar stories of unexpected observations have routinely been recounted in the history of science. It is the exceptional fact, the misfit, that ultimately brings the fresh insight, not the routine, humdrum one. That was one reason why I was at some pains to quote Butterfield about the Scotland Yard detective who noted all the obvious clues, but still drew the wrong conclusions. In a very deep sense, B really does not want to look at all the pertinent data—after all, he already knows the answer, so why bother? It’s really just too much trouble. This again characterizes the legal mind, but not the scientific mind. And, more troublesome for him, it totally violates his own best description of his own book—a book that attempts “…to be a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the entire [sic] case…”
So, Where Are We?
So where, in the end, are we after this massive tome? First, I think it is very good to have it as a resource. But it absolutely must be counterbalanced by at least a few open minds. Sometimes common sense does not carry the day. Sometimes even bizarre data are real. Sometimes even government employees under unique pressures do things they never would otherwise do (e.g., missing original X-rays and altered X-rays). Not all cases follow the textbook. As a cancer specialist with many decades of experience, that is the main thing that still keeps me interested. So let’s keep this discussion wide open. Let’s not just talk about looking at the evidence. And let’s not rule out evidence simply because it violates past experience. In the future, unlike B, let’s actually examine all of the evidence, but especially those items that are central—and even the evidence we weren’t quite expecting.
After B describes his amusement at the outright silliness (in his opinion) of the two-brain proposal, he tells us how he really feels:
How, then, can Mantik and thousands like him in the conspiracy community—
many of lesser intellect—end up uttering absurdities like this, as well as countless
others throughout the years?
But the number of well-known persons who have conceded a conspiracy, directly or indirectly, is quite remarkable. Does B truly believe that all of the following individuals have simply “…utter[ed] absurdities…throughout the years”?
MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA: Addendum 5.
Believers in a JFK Assassination Conspiracy
Lyndon Baines Johnson, President of the United States69
Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States70
John B. Connally, Governor of Texas71
J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI
Clyde Tolson, Associate Director of the FBI72
Cartha DeLoach, Assistant Director of the FBI
William Sullivan, FBI Domestic Intelligence Chief
John McCone, Director of the CIA
David Atlee Phillips, CIA disinformation specialist
(Chief of Covert Actions, Mexico City, 1963)
Stanley Watson, CIA, Chief of Station
The Kennedy family73
Admiral (Dr.) George Burkley, White House physician
James J. Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service74
Robert Knudsen, White House photographer (who saw autopsy photos)
Jesse Curry, Chief of Police,75 Dallas Police Department
Roy Kellerman (heard JFK speak after supposed magic bullet)
William Greer (the driver of the Lincoln limousine)
Abraham Bolden, Secret Service, White House detail & Chicago office
John Norris, Secret Service (worked for LBJ; researched case for decades)
Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary
Abraham Zapruder, most famous home movie photographer in history
James Tague, struck by a bullet fragment in Dealey Plaza
Hugh Huggins, CIA operative, conducted private investigation for RFK
Sen. Richard Russell, member of the Warren Commission
John J. McCloy, member of the Warren Commission
Bertrand Russell, British mathematician and philosopher
Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University
Michael Foot, British MP
Senator Richard Schweiker, assassinations subcommittee (Church Committee)
Tip O’Neill, Speaker of the House (he assumed JFK’s congressional seat)
Rep. Henry Gonzalez (introduced bill to establish HSCA)
Rep. Don Edwards, chaired HSCA hearings (former FBI agent)
Frank Ragano, attorney for Trafficante, Marcello, Hoffa
Marty Underwood, advance man for Dallas trip
Riders in follow-up car: JFK aides Kenny O’Donnell and Dave Powers
Sam Kinney, Secret Service driver of follow-up car
Paul Landis, passenger in Secret Service follow-up car
John Marshall, Secret Service
John Norris, Secret Service
H. L. Hunt, right-wing oil baron
John Curington, H.L. Hunt’s top aide
Bill Alexander, Assistant Dallas District Attorney
Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel for the HSCA
Robert Tanenbaum, Chief Counsel for the HSCA
Richard A. Sprague, Chief Counsel for the HSCA
Gary Cornwell, Deputy Chief Counsel for the HSCA
Parkland doctors: McClelland, Crenshaw, Stewart, Seldin, Goldstrich, Zedlitz, Jones, Akin, et al.
Bethesda witnesses: virtually all of the paramedical personnel
All of the jurors in Garrison’s trial of Clay Shaw76
Bobby Hargis, Dealey Plaza motorcycle man
Mary Woodward, Dallas Morning News (and eyewitness in Dealey Plaza)
Maurice G. Marineau, Secret Service, Chicago office
Most of the American public
Most of the world’s Citizens
In Closing
B clearly wants to destroy every last scintilla of anti-WC evidence. But even he admits that virtually no murder case is ever that clean cut. It is therefore more than a little bewildering that he does not give ground a little here and there—but he simply won’t. That makes him all the less credible. And it certainly does not give him the air of a scientist. But he does not seem to care. He would prefer to appear omniscient.
There is not even a pretense of open-mindedness. His scorn, perhaps even hatred, for the critics comes through page after page. Again, the reader must decide if he can accept such a relentless bias.
Although he describes our books (edited by Fetzer) as the only exclusively scientific books on the case, he mostly avoids the issues raised therein. The 6.5 mm object does get some, rather strange, discussion, but that’s about all. It’s quite fantastic that he would throw such an encomium at us and then leave us largely alone. On the contrary, he should have focused on many of our paradoxes, to the exclusion of JFK’s tailors or Oswald’s motives, for example.
He admits that his book is mainly reinterpretation and reanalysis, as opposed to new evidence. In other words, this is a book absolutely packed with second-hand information. The reader must judge for himself whether that is good enough. That surely befits his role as a trial attorney, but a scientist would not be at all happy with that. For my part, I think it is a great loss for all of us that he did not at least visit the National Archives. He need not even have gone alone. In recent years, at least two individuals, whom he cites favorably, have been there. Why didn’t he tag along?
Despite its occasional references to science, this book is rarely a scientific discussion of the evidence—not even the medical evidence. In fact, this case is so wide and so deep, as B acknowledges, that he really cannot do justice to his opponents on a myriad of issues. The honest researcher absolutely must not take his word on most of these controversies—such an individual has no choice but to read the works of B’s opponents. What is valuable about the book, though, is that these references are usually indicated. For that reason alone it will be with us for a very long time.
Appendix A:
A Small Potpourri of Other Comments and Criticisms
1. B persistently lumps all critics into grassy knoll trumpeters. I am not one—the medical evidence does not go that way. But B is a lumper, not a splitter, so there I sit in his classification scheme.
2. B claims that nearly all critics believe the pathologists were incompetent. I do not. I have previously written that Humes was in charge of the weekly brain cutting conferences at Bethesda. There are many other reasons for believing that he was not merely competent, but probably above average.
3. B claims that critics are stuck with the position that the back bullet (if it did not traverse JFK) vanished into thin air. Nowhere does he acknowledge my proposal that the back wound could merely have been caused by a piece of shrapnel. There is, in fact, an enormous amount of evidence for lots of shrapnel in this case, even visible on the X-rays themselves.
4. He also claims that the throat bullet had to disappear miraculously if the critics are right (that it came from the front). Unfortunately again, perhaps intentionally, he does not mention my alternate proposal that a bullet traversed the windshield, but missed everyone. A fair number of witnesses describe such an event (both the stray bullet and the windshield evidence). So the throat wound might well have been caused by a small splinter of glass, which would actually fit with the wound seen at the top of the right lung (it was localized).
5. B claims that critics routinely place Connally directly in front of JFK in order to destroy the single bullet theory. That is not the case for me. I have performed very detailed reconstructions (via Z-frames and corollary data) with Connally properly placed, but still cannot prove the single bullet theory. As he often does, B likes to simplify things.
6. B notes that all the evidence points toward debris flying forward after the head shot(s). But he ignores the contrary reports of the motorcycle men to the rear and the members of the Secret Service in the follow-up car. Is he truly unaware of their reports?
7. He places great emphasis on the invisible hole at the back of JFK’s head—in those Z frames immediately after the headshot. By doing so, he totally ignores my discussion of a bone fragment like a trap door at the posterior. This is based on the actual X-rays, but also on the comments of Dr. Robert McClelland. Furthermore, Z-374 does suggest the large hole at the rear.
8. The large white patches on both lateral X-rays should at least be mentioned in passing. So far as I know these alterations have not been seriously challenged and even Humes was confused by them in his deposition. These areas, posterior to the ear, show bone virtually as dense as JFK’s petrous bone, the densest in the body. His pre-mortem lateral does not look anything like this.
9. B (more than once) implies that critics believe that the CIA hired Oswald to kill JFK. Surely B’s thinking has become a bit muddled here. Oswald himself stated that he was a patsy. I strongly suspect that most critics would leave it at that—and not, in any way, support B’s depiction of the CIA-Oswald connection.
10. B incessantly beats the drum for the WC’s honesty and open-mindedness. Although B cites Warren’s autobiography, he carefully avoids his eulogy for JFK, while the body lay in the capitol rotunda. On that Sunday, Warren made it transparently clear (at this incredibly early date) that he knew that “…some misguided wretch [singular noun]…” had done this deed. He also used the phrase, “an assassin.” That he recounts this in his autobiography shows that he had not the least embarrassment about having said this, even in retrospect.
11. B wonders what the purpose of substituting and removing autopsy photographs from the collection could possibly be? One can only think he is being disingenuous here. What reason could there be other than to remove evidence of conspiracy, e.g., a large hole at the back of the head?
12. In his Introduction, regarding the life of Jesus, B impulsively says, “Indeed, no one has come up with anything new for two thousand years.” Many, perhaps most, New Testament scholars would leap off their chairs at this eccentric comment. For more information on this subject, see the blog for my opening quote. B seems off-handedly to dismiss all manner of fascinating items: the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi documents (discovered by Mohammed Ali), the ossuaries of James (still debated) and Peter (not much debated) and Caiafas (not debated), Peter’s house (possibly correct), the Galilean boat, the inscription for Pontius Pilate, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the tomb of Herod the Great, the recent resurgence of scholarly literature on Mary Magdalene, and the very recent, hotly-debated Talpiot Tomb.
Appendix B:
Modern Physics and James Joyce
(This is purely for readers who want to close the gap between the two cultures.)
1. Overstreet, David. 1980. Oxymoronic language and logic in quantum mechanics and James Joyce. Substance (University of Wisconsin Press) 28: 37-59.
2. Porter, Jeffrey. 1990. “Three quarks for Muster Mark”: Quantum wordplay and nuclear discourse in Russell Hogan’s Riddley Walker. Contemporary Literature 21: 448-469.
3. Booker, M. Keith. 1990. Joyce, Planck, Einstein, and Heisenberg: A relativistic quantum mechanical discussion of Ulysses. James Joyce Quarterly 27: 577-586.
Acknowledgments
My wife, Patricia L. James, MD, and my son, Christopher (age 21), offered useful insights, which I have incorporated. The latter (at age 15), immediately after my observation of the T-shaped inscription, was able to complete the argument for me (as outlined above) before I could even finish it. James Fetzer, Ph.D., offered wise advice on structuring this essay. I am grateful to Jones Harris, who alerted me to Spy Wars. John Hunt kindly loaned his data tables on the lead fragments used for spectroscopic and neutron activation analysis, while Gary Aguilar, M.D., has persistently attended to numerous critical details and thereby made this review a more robust summary of the relevant evidence.
-
Hardball above:
""TALBOT: The first critics of the Warren Commission were the members of the Warren Commission. Richard Russell, the senator from Georgia said this, he said, I think somebody else worked with Oswald on the planning of the assassination. He said that shortly before he died. And also said the majority of the commission felt the same way I did.
BUGLIOSI: No, he did not say that. He did not say that.
TALBOT: Yes, he did.
BUGLIOSI: This guy attended six of the meetings out of about the 80.
TALBOT: He said it on Cox Broadcasting in Atlanta, shortly before his
death of lung cancer. You don‘t have your history correct. You don‘t have
your history correct, Mr. Bugliosi. You‘re not a historian and you‘re not .""
Vincent Bugliosi does not know the data of the Warren Commission.....and which members disagreed..
with it's findings. As well as President Johnson, yet has written a Tome on the subject, preaching that it is correct...
..Oh My..Duh.....!!.
The members :
Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States;
U.S. Senators Richard B. Russell Democrat from Georgia
John Sherman Cooper Republican from Kentucky
U.S. Representatives Hale Boggs Democrat from Louisiana
Gerald R. Ford Republican from Michigan
Allen W. Dulles, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and
John J. McCloy, former president of the World Bank.
Former U.S. Solicitor General James Lee Rankin general counsel .
and 14 assistant counsels, also an additional staff of 12.
The proceedings began Dec. 3, 1963 , the final report was delivered to the President Johnson on Sept. 24, 1964.
Despite this public assertion, JFK assassination expert Anthony Summers emphasizes most of the commission's seven members had private doubts about the theory: "John McCloy had difficulty accepting it. Congressman Hale Boggs had ‘strong doubts.' Senator John Sherman Cooper was, he told me (Summers) in 1978, ‘unconvinced.' . . . On a recently released tape, held at the Lyndon B. Johnson Library, (Sen. Richard) Russell is heard telling President Johnson, ‘I don't believe it.' And Johnson responds, ‘I don't either.'"
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=19071
17 Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part03.htm
Documents recently uncovered in the University of Georgia Library show that Richard Russell, the only Georgian on the Warren Commission, had grave doubts about key aspects of the Warren Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy but kept silent about his reservations for two years. These documents, located by a university student doing research on the JFK assassination, also reveal that Russell, apparently disgusted with Warren Commission procedures, prepared but never sent a letter resigning from the Commission three months after JFK's death.
http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/...k_9russell.html
http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/...senrussell.html
B.......
-
Da bump...
-
What Greer should have done
The relevant rule set forth in the Secret Service document outlining principles of Presidential protection states: "The driver of the President’s car should be alert for dangers and be able to take instant action when instructed or otherwise made aware of an emergency [emphasis added]."45 Former Inspector and Assis-tant Director Thomas Kelley told the HSCA: "… generally the instructions to the drivers of the cars are to be prepared to get the President away from any dan-gerous situation."46 For his part, Chief Rowley wrote to the Warren Commission: "The Secret Service has consistently followed two general principals in emergen-cies involving the President. All agents are so instructed. The first duty of the agents in the motorcade is to attempt to cover the President as closely as possi-ble and practicable and to shield him by attempting to place themselves be-tween the President and any source of danger. Secondly, agents are instructed to remove the President as quickly as possible from known or impending danger. Agents are instructed that it is not their responsibility to investigate or evaluate a present danger, but to consider any untoward circumstances as serious and to afford the President maximum protection at all times. No responsibility rests upon those agents near the President for the identification or arrest of an as-sassin or attacker. Their primary responsibility is to stay with and protect the President."47 [Emphasis added.] In addition, the Secret Service liked to maintain speeds of at least 20–30 miles per hour during motorcades.48
What actually happened
The sequence is crucial:
1. First shot (or shots) rings out: the car slows with brake lights on.
2. Greer turns around once.
3. Kellerman orders Greer to "get out of line; we’ve been hit!".
4. Greer disobeys his superior’s order and turns around to stare at JFK for the second time, until after the fatal headshot finds its mark!
As Patricia (Billings) Lambert noted in her landmark 1976 article about the agency, Five Seconds to Save the President: "What is particularly disturbing about the behavior of the Secret Service agents guarding the President in Dallas is the degree of uniformity in their response, their almost total non-reaction at the crucial moment: Roberts did not shout a warning; Greer did not accelerate; Kellerman did not move into the back seat; and only one agent [Hill] attempted to reach the President before the fatal shot. Why was lethargy so pervasive?"
Palamara about Greer..v4n1 chapter 08..link below..
*****************************
Was Emory Roberts Involved ?
Marcel Dehaeseleer
http://www.copweb.be/Emory%20Roberts.htm
*************************
From Vince Palamara:
Emory P. Roberts merits the same scrutiny, if not more so; a look
at his role is now in order.
Jumping ahead to Dallas on November 22, 1963, (after friendly,
enthusiastic, and uneventful motorcades in San Antonio, Houston,
and Fort Worth on November 21-22,1963), Agent Roberts assigned
the other seven agents on his particular shift to the follow-up
car: Sam Kinney, Clint Hill, Paul Landis, William"Tim" McIntyre,
Glen Bennett, George Hickey, and John Ready13 -- four of whom had
only hours before participated in the in famous drinking incident
in Fort Worth. Mr. Roberts' shift was the worst offender of the
three shifts!14 What makes this tragic is that Roberts had the
most important shift of all: the 8:00a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift--
the Fort Worth/Dallas part of the Texas trip (the other two
shifts, Agent Stout's 4:00 p.m. to midnight detail and Agent
Godfrey's midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift were not actively
protecting JFK during the Dallas motorcade. They were all waiting
for JFK to complete the motorcade--Stout's detail at the Trade
Mart, Godfrey's detail in Austin with Bob Burk and Bill Payne at
both the Commodore-Perry Hotel and the LBJ Ranch).
Cover-up number one: Agent Roberts would later write (April 28,
1964) that "there was no question in my mind as to (the agents')
physical and mental capacity to function effectively in their
assigned duties."15 Like Chief Rowley and Inspector Kelley
before both the WC and the HSCA, Agent Roberts covered up the
drinking incident, despite Secret Service regulations which
stated that this was grounds for removal from the agency.16 Sleep
deprivation and alcohol consumption wreak havoc on even the best
trained reflexes. While leaving Love Field on the way to the
heart of Dallas, destiny, and murder, Agent Roberts rose from his
seat and, using his voice and several hand gestures, forced agent
Henry J. Rybka fall back from the rear area of JFK's limousine,
causing a perplexed Rybka to stop and raise his arms several
times in disgust (Rybka would then remain at the airport during
the murder, having been effectively neutralized) --although Paul
Landis made room for him on the right running board of the
follow-up car, Agent Rybka did not budge.17 Although Rybka worked
the follow-up in Houston the day before18 and was a gun-carrying
protective agent, he was not allowed to do his job on November
22,1963 (Rybka has since died...).
Cover-up number two: Both Emory Roberts and Winston Lawson placed
Agent Rybka in the follow-up car in their initial reports, only
to "correct" the record later, after November 22, although Rybka
was not even mentioned anywhere in Agent Lawson's Preliminary
Survey Report--making it seem obvious that he was covering Emory
Roberts' behind.19 As the cars approached the Main and Houston
Street intersection, Clint Hill fell back to the follow-up car.
Agent Hill was the only agent to ride on the rear of the
limousine in Dallas and he was not even assigned to JFK (as a
last-minute addition to the trip, Agent Hill was, like Paul
Landis, part of Jackie's detail, and came at the First Lady's
personal request). John Ready, a relatively new agent, never
approached JFK's side of the limousine. Why not? Emory Roberts
explained: "SA Ready would have done the same thing (as Agent
Hill did) if motorcycle was not a President's corner of car"(!)20
Strange, but this posed no problem at all for Agent Don Lawton on
November 18, 1963, in Tampa21 (but unfortunately, like Rybka,
Lawton was left at Love Field and was not in the motorcade
detail).22 In any event, there was always cooperation between the
motorcycles and the agents; they maneuvered around each other
countless times, including in Dallas on November 22.
Cover-up number three: The April 22, 1964 reports from Agents
Behn, Boring, Ready, Hill, and Emory Roberts, alleging,
after-the-fact, that President Kennedy had ordered agents off the
rear of the limousine on November 18, 1963 in Tampa, and in other
cities.23 It has to be stated again, and with some new
corroboration to boot: JFK never ordered the agents to do
anything, let alone telling the men to get off the rear of the
limousine (or to take off the bubbletop, reduce the number of
motorcycles, etc.). Agents Behn and Boring totally refuted their
own (alleged) reports in conversations with me, while agents
Kinney, Youngblood, Bouck, Noris, Bolden, Lilly, Martineau, plus
two recently-interviewed agents, Don Lawton and Art Godfrey,
confirmed the fact that JFK never ordered the agents to do
anything. He was "very cooperative," they told me. Kenny
O'Donnell did not "relay" any orders either, and in addition,
Dave Powers, Marty Underwood, and a new contact, White House
photographer Cecil Stoughton, confirmed to me what all the agents
have told me to date!24
If you concentrate on the critical time frame in which these
"presidential orders" allegedly occurred, November 18-21, 1963,
you can see what peril they caused in Dallas: no protection--as
"requested"--on JFK's side of the car (including no bubbletop,
partial or full, nor the usual number of motorcycles riding next
to JFK, something that occurred everywhere except Dallas.25 When
I mentioned this to Agent Chuck Zboril (who was in Tampa with
Agent Lawton on 11/18/63), he nervously said: "Where did you read
that [JFK's alleged orders]? Do you want me commenting
officially? I'm...speaking to someone I don't even know...you
see...someone else testified about what happened in Tampa [Clint
Hill]...(pause)... can you....send me what you have on this
matter? After sending Mr. Zboril a video and a contents sheet, he
declined to respond as promised.26 I have since learned that many
former agents now have "caller I.D." on their phones, and were
warned not to speak to me (on 6/7/96, I called the home of
Winston Lawson. After asking for him, his wife called him by name
and he then got on the phone and told me I had the wrong number!
It gets worse... Although Agent Roberts admitted recognizing
"Oswald's" first shot as a rifle blast,27 as the Altgens photo
confirms, he made a mysterious transmission via radio microphone
that is not accounted for in his reports or in the official
record.28 Instead of offering a shout of alarm, alert, or orders
to his agents to do something that their own initiative lacked
for some reason, ie., protective action, he did nothing to help
the wounded President. Roberts' recall of Agent Ready is well
documented,29 although we have...
Cover-up number four: The alleged speed of the limousine and the
alleged distance between the two cars (9-11 mph and five feet in
reality, not the 20-25 mph and 20-25 feet stated in both SAs
Roberts and Agent Ready's reports) was used as the pretext for
the recall of Ready.30 Taking everything cited to the point into
account, there is still another factor that has escaped virtually
everyone, and this "factor" came about quite accidentally. In
Groden and Livingstone's High Treason, (pages 16 and 487 of the
Berkley edition, respectively), it was noted that "Emory Roberts
ordered the agents not to move", which I took to be an unintended
overstatement at the time. So, I decided to read the passage to
Sam Kinney who told me, "Exactly right, and I'm involved in that,
too!" Besides the Love Field recall of Agent Rybka and Dealey
Plaza recall of Ready, Roberts also immobilized the other agents
at a critical juncture in the shooting, causing a non- JFK agent
(Clint Hill) to react too late to do anything but cover the
corpse of the President.31 I believe aides Ken O'Donnell and Dave
Powers best summed up the situation when they wrote: "Roberts,
one of President Kennedy's agents...had decided to switch to
Johnson as soon as Kennedy was shot" (emphasis added).32 In
addition, four other authors have noted Agent Roberts' "switch of
allegiance," including Chief Curry!33
Once at Parkland Hospital, SA Roberts totally usurped his
superior, number three man Roy Kellerman (on his first trip on
his own for the first-time vacationing Gerry Behn, leaving Floyd
Boring in charge of the Texas trip back in Washington, DC)34;
Emory ordered Kellerman's agents around and confided in Rufus
Youngblood, the soon-to-be SAIC, replacing the absent Behn (just
as ASAIC Youngblood replaced SAIC Stu Knight in Dallas, and Henry
Fowler re-placed the absent Treasury Secretary C. Douglas
Dillon. For his part, Youngblood was to become the SAIC of the
Vice-Presidential Detail on November 25,1963, a move planned
before Dallas, but he rose much higher after Dallas). What
William Manchester reports as having occurred at Parkland on page
170 of his book makes one both sick and repulsed: "Powers and
O'Donnell bounded toward the Lincoln. Powers heard Emory Roberts
shouting at him to stop but disregarded him; a second might save
Kennedy's life [Dave, too bad you weren't on the running board of
the follow-up car...!]...Emory Roberts brushed past O'Donnell,
determined to make sure that Kennedy was dead. 'Get up,' he said
to Jacqueline Kennedy. there was no reply. She was crooning
faintly. From his side Roberts could see the President's face, so
he lifted her elbow for a close look. He dropped it. To
Kellerman, his superior, he said tersely, 'You stay with Kennedy.
I'm going to Johnson.'"(Emphasis added)35
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-rober.htm
***************************
FROM : ATSAIC Emory P. Roberts, The White House Detail.
U. S. Secret Service
November 29, 1963.
12:30 p.m. First of three shots fired, at which time I saw the
President lean toward Mrs. Kennedy. I do not know if it was the
next shot or third shot that hit the President in the head, but I
saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right_ side of
the President's head, saw blood, at which time the President fell
further to his left. Mrs. Kennedy was leaning toward the
President, however, she immediately raised up in the seat and
appeared to be getting up on back of same. About this time I saw
SA Clinton Hill trying to get on left rear step of the
President's car. He got aboard and climbed up over the back of
the car and placed himself over the President and Mrs. Kennedy.
After SA Hill got on rear step of the President's car it appeared
that SA John Ready was about to follow and go for the right rear
step, however, I told him not to jump, as we had picked up speed,
and I was afraid he could not make it.
It is estimated that we were traveling approximately 15-20 miles
per hour at the time of the shooting and it is believed that the
follow-up car was approximately 20 25 feet behind the President's
car.
The crowd was very sparse, in fact only a few people were along
the motorcade route at the time of the shooting.
Just after the third shot was fired, I picked up the car radio
and said "Halfback (code name for SS. Follow-up car) to Lawson,
the President has been hit, escort us to the nearest hospital,
fast but at a safe speed." I repeated the message, requesting to
be cautious, meaning the speed. I had in mind Vice President
Johnson's safety, as well as the President's, if he was not
already dead.
The Vice President's car was approximately one-half block behind
the Secret Service car, at the time of the shooting, and some of
us waved for it to close in closer to the Secret Service car. The
Vice President's car quickly closed the gap.
When I turned around to wave the Vice President's car to come
closer, at same time, trying to determine where shots had come
from, I said, pointing to SA McIntyre, ''They got him, they got
him," continuing I said "You (meaning McIntyre) and Bennett take
over Johnson as soon as we stop." (meaning the hospital).
I turned around a couple times, just after the shooting and saw
that some of the Special Agents had their guns drawn, I know I
drew mine, and saw SA Hickey in rear seat with the AR-15, and
asked him to be careful with it.
12:34 p.m. Presidential motorcade arrived at Parkland Hospital.
(I did not look at my watch, however, I overheard someone at the
hospital say that it took four minutes to get there.)
Upon arrival at Parkland Hospital, I immediately ran to President
Kennedy. Mrs. Kennedy was lieing over him. I said to Mrs. Kennedy
to let us get the President. She said in effect that she was not
going to move. I got one look at the President's head and
remarked to ASAIC Kellerman, "You stay with the President, I'm
taking some of my men for Johnson." SA's McIntyre and Bennett
were already with Vice President Johnson, having joined SAIC
Rufus Youngblood and other Special Agents assigned to the Vice
President, as the Vice President arrived at the hospital.
The first thing we did, was request a room for the Vice
President. After getting the Vice President and Mrs. Johnson in a
room, at the hospital, I said in effect to the Vice President, in
the presence of Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Cliff Carter, Executive
Assistant to the Vice President and SAIC Youngblood, as well as
others, that I did not think the President could make it and
suggested that we get out of Dallas as soon as possibl
"http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-rober.htm" target="_blank">http:
//jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-rober.htm</a>
He Roberts states in his above statement......
""Note: On shift report for Nov. 22, 1963, I listed SA Rybka as
riding in center of rear seat, which was in error, as he was not
in car. As mentioned above, he remained at Love Field.""
If this was in error, why did he report this on Nov. 22/63..in
the shift report?
***************************
Vince Palamara had indicated he would include "never-before-seen
films and photos from the author's massive private collection,"
and in this, the audience was not disappointed. "This is
different angles of [the Kennedy motorcade] leaving Love Field,"
Palamara said, as the video rolled. Using a red "laser light"
pointer, he identified various agents, and supplied narration:
"This is John Ready ... Paul Landis ... here they are, leaving
Love Field ... Henry Rybka --- thinking that he's going to be
doing what he just did the last few stops --- this is when Emory
Roberts rises in his seat in the followup car ... and we see some
hand gestures ... basically tells [Rybka] to cease and desist
from his actions. Paul Landis is even making room for him on the
followup car! And this is when you'll see Henry Rybka ... I think
a picture says a thousand words, well this is about as close as
you can get here ---" And as the next image flickered on the
screen in slow motion, the Lancer audience rumbled in
astonishment --- the words "Wow!" and "Jesus!" leap out from my
tape recorder. For as Henry Rybka is seen being summoned from his
usual position back to the followup car, he issues a confused
palms-up gesture that seems to say, "What gives?"
Rybka was left behind at Love Field. "And the most amazing thing
of all," Palamara continued, "is the fact that there is not one
report, not two reports, but three reports after the fact,
placing Rybka in the followup car! But he wasn't there! Again ---
either they assumed he did hop into the car, or there was a
coverup. Take your pick..."
The clip of Rybka's confusion rolled again; I think everyone
needed to see it at least twice. "When you see this clip
normally, it's normally real time, it goes by real quick..."
More clips were shown, and there was more analysis of the Dallas
motorcade and the role of the Secret Service. "The situation
now," Palamara said as he began to wrap things up, "we've been
looking at our suspects, and I think there's a lot to be said for
the work of other authors and researchers ... in my interviews,
I've totally debunked any notion of President Kennedy had
anything to do with the security insufficiencies, and it boils
down to the Secret Service being responsible for them...
"Anonymous no longer, the Secret Service will never again be
taken for granted in any view of what happened on November 22,
1963..."
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/0052-VP.TXT
******************
The Policy of “No Agents” on the President’s Limousine
Information from Vince Palamara’s “Survivor’s Guilt” 2005
The Evolution of the Myth.
The Warren Commission was curious apparently, along with members
of the media and the public, why there were no agents protecting
the President Kennedy during the Dallas motorcade on 11/22/63. by
being posted on the back of the Limo on either side. Or why no
agents were not walking or running along side of the car.?(1).
Agents had performed these duties since the days of FDR. In
response, and only because they demanded an answer, Secret
Service Chief James J.Rowley had agents , Jerry Behn, Floyd
Boring, Emory Roberts, John Ready, and Clint Hill write their
reports in relation to their experiences with JFK on the matter
of security,(why Roy Kellerman, the agent in charge of the Dallas
trip , and the other Texas agents weren’t asked, is not known.)
Most interesting is that nothing is mentioned specifically by the
WC about 11/22/63..as requested by them. On first glance all five
reports support the notion that the President did not want agents
on or near the rear of the limo. However that is at first glance.
Special Agent In Charge (SAIC) of White House detail (WHD)
Gerald. A “Jerry” Behn, not on the Texas trip, stated
unequivocally in his report 4/16/64 that JFK “told me that he did
not want agents riding on the back of his car.” This came from
the man who was the leader of the WH detail, “the man who was the
direct pipeline to the President, this alleged presidential edit
seems to be an authoritative and conclusive fact.
However, during the course of three separate interviews with
Vince Palamara, Mr.Behn let out a most unexpected bombshell: “I
don’t remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn’t want anybody on
the back of his car”. He went on to further add” that newsreel
footage from that period will bear him out on this point.” One of
many examples being the June 63 trip to Berlin (and many others
from 61 to 63). “I think if you watch the newsreel pictures
you’ll find agents on there from time to time.” Behn said.
Brehn’s reputation was and is impeccable. Agent Maurice
G.Martineau told Palamara on 9/21/93.. “No one that I can think
of would have been better positioned to give you the information
than Jerry Behn…( he was ) as well informed as anyone I can think
of that you could contact”. Behn garnered the utmost respect from
his colleagues that the author spoke with”.
Mr.Behn however ended his report by stating..” As late as Nov.
18(63)… he (JFK) told ASAIC Boring the same thing (or so Boring
claimed). Assistant Special Agent Boring was also not on the
Dallas trip, he had dealt primarily with the 11/18/63 Tampa,
Florida trip in his report ( dated 4/8/64) while also he
mentioned the 7/2/63 Italy trip, alleging that President Kennedy
made this request for both stops. Boring made the Florida trip in
place of Mr.Behn.
That said, in yet another contradiction that caught the author
off guard Boring exclaimed: “No, no that’s not true..(JFK) was a
very easy going guy…he didn’t interfere with our actions at all”,
thus also contradicting his report.
Assistant To the Special Agent in Charge (ATSAIC) Emory P.Roberts
(on the Florida and Texas trips) the commander of the SS follow
up car …the late Mr. Roberts (he died in the 60’s) deals
exclusively with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip in his report (
dated 4/10/64): Boring was Roberts sole source, via radio
transmission from the limousine ahead of his follow-up vehicle,
for JFK’s alleged request.
Special Agent (SA) John David “Jack” Ready (on the Texas trip)
..Ready’s very brief report (dated 4/11/64) dealt exclusively
with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip. However, Ready was not on
that specific Florida trip. Boring was, once again, his source
for JFK’s alleged request .Ready would not respond to written
inquiries from the author. The author phoned Mr. Ready on 6/13/05
and asked him if it was true that Boring said this, based on
JFK’s request. After confirming he wasn’t on the Tampa trip,
Ready stated : “Not on the phone (will I answer you ).I don’t
know you from Adam. Can you see my point ?”.
SA Clinton J,”Clint” Hill (on the Texas trip) …Hill also deals
with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip and Borings second-hand in
his (strangely undated) report: Mr. Hill was not on the Florida
trip either. Mr. Hill’s brother is former agent David B. Grant, a
former advance agent who worked on the planning of the Florida
and Texas trips with none other than Mr.Boring.
So of the five SS reports, four have as their primary source for
JFK’s alleged request Agent Floyd Boring, including one by Boring
himself, while the remaining report, written by Mr.Behn, mentions
the same 11/18/63 trip with Mr. Boring as the others do.Both Behn
and Boring totally contradicted the contents of their reports at
different times, independent of each other, to the author. In
addition, agents DID ride on the rear of the limousine on 7/2/63
and 11/18/63 anyway, despite these alleged Presidential requests,
as the film and photo record proves.(2).Needless to say, with
Boring joining Behn in refuting the substance of their reports ,
the official SS ‘ explanation’ falls like a house of cards.
Brehn’s, Boring’s, and Hill’s reports are not even on any SS or
Treasury Dept. stationary, just blank sheets of paper. Also
Hill’s report is undated, an unusual error to make in any
official government that has been requested by the head of the
Secret Service.
Yet, all are supposed to be evidence of JFK expressing his desire
to keep Secret Service agents off the limousine, particularly in
Tampa, Florida..? Importantly ,no mention is made of any alleged
orders via President’s Staff. And, again, there is nothing about
what JFK said or “requested” on Nov.22/63.The critical day in
question.
Above from page 4-5.
Notes: p.210
(1) Vol.18 WC: p.803-809 “From now on , this designation, the
standard one used in the literature, will be adopted as follows:
However, the hydraulic side steps which swung out were rarely
used because of their narrowness and their potential lethal
capability to unknowing spectators on a motorcade route : “The
Death of a President,” p.36 ( All references to Manchester’s book
are from the 1988 Perennial Library edition) “Presidential
Limousines” video by Rick Boudreau .1996. When Kennedy’s
specially-designed Lincoln Continental limousine was delivered to
the White House in June 61, detachable rear grab handles were
included ( Press statement ,Ford Motor Co. June 61).In early 62
,grab handles were permanently added to the rear of the car. It
should also be noted that President Eisenhower’s limousine (and
even one of the two 56 Cadillac convertible follow up cars) was
also, out of necessity, used from time to time. (2) Regarding
Italy: See also “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye” by O’Donnell, Kenneth
P., David F .Powers, and Joseph McCarthy, (Boston: Little Brown &
Co. 1972) page 433 (Note: All references to this book are from
the Pocket Book paperback edition published in 73).
The Myth…
Floyd Boring and quite a few of his SS colleagues denied to Vince
Palamara what William Manchester reports in the best seller “The
Death of a President”: “Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards
roosting behind him every time he turned around, and in Tampa
Nov.18/63 just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent
Floyd Boring to ‘keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of
the car’ Boring wasn’t offended .There had been no animosity in
the remark”.(3)
But incredibly Boring told Palamara that “I never told him that”.
As for the merit of the quote itself, Boring said “No, no—that’s
not true”. Thus contradicting his own report in the process.
Incredibly, Boring was not even interviewed for Manchester’s
book! We may never know the source for this information as
Manchester told the author on 8/23/93 that “ all the material is
under seal and won’t be released in my lifetime”, and denied the
author access to his notes. Manchester has since passed away. (4)
Interestingly Manchester did interview the late Emory Roberts,
his probable but also very questionable source.(5) As a result
Manchester left his mark on the issue.(6) In Jim Bishop’s “The
Day Kennedy Was Shot”, he simply repeats the written record of
the WC and the previously mentioned five reports all taken at
face value. Mr. Boring was not interviewed for the book. Mr.
Bishop,also now dead, his information rests with him. But he did
sum up the situation the best. “ No one wanted to weigh the
possibilities that, if a Secret Service man had been on the left
rear bumper going down Elm Street, it would have been difficult
to hit President Kennedy” he also noted “The Secret Service men
were not pleased because they were in a “ hot” city and would
have preferred to have two men ride the bumper of the President’s
car with two motorcycle policemen between him ( JFK) and the
crowds on the sidewalks”. Thanks to the SS reports above ( and,
in large part to Agent Boring himself ) three massive best
sellers still in print ..The Warren Report…Manchester’s “The
Death of a President”….and Bishop’s “The Day Kennedy Was
Shot”…have created the myth that JFK was difficult to protect and
had ordered the agents off his car..and like a ,dangerous myth
that endures to this day in classrooms and in the media , thus
doing great damage to the true historical record. The Secret
Service Myth..Blames the Victim.
Clint Hill: “I never personally was requested by President John
F. Kennedy not to ride on the rear of the Presidential
automobile. I did receive information passed verbally from the
administrative offices of the White House Detail of the Secret
Service to Agents assigned to that Detail that President Kennedy
had made such requests.”
“This would have been between Nov. 19/63 and Nov 21/63 “.He could
not recall at the time what specific agent had given him JFK’s
alleged desires….note the dates.
But during his WC testimony, he revealed it on 3/9/64 under oath
to the future Senator Arlen Specter, then a lawyer for the WC.
Specter: “Now had there been any instruction or comment about
your performance of that type of duty (moving to the rear part of
the limo) With respect to anything President Kennedy himself had
said in the period immediately preceding the trip to Texas ?”
Hill” “Yes Sir, there was. The preceding Monday, the President
was on a trip to Tampa. Florida and he requested that agents not
ride on either of those two steps”.
Specter: “ And to whom did the President make that request?”
Hill: “Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring”.
Boring was also in charge of planning the Texas trip for the
Secret Service..
From p: 6, 7, 8. ***********************************************
Notes p.210
(3) Manchester p.37-38 .He also wrote “It was a good idea, for
example, to have agents perched on the broad trunk of the
Presidential Lincoln when crowds threatened to grow disorderly.
The trouble was they were always there.” (4)Author Walt Brown
mentions Palamara’s controversial contact with Manchester in his
book “Treachery In Dallas”. 95. P.338. (5) Manchester p.667 Of
the 21 agents /officials interviewed by Manchester, only Roberts,
Greer, Kinney and Blaine were on the Florida trip. Blaine was the
advance agent for Tampa,( riding in the lead car), Greer drove
JFK’s car, Kinney drove the follow-up car, and Roberts was the
commander of the follow-up car. Roberts is Palamara’s main
suspect of the four being Manchester’s dubious source for this
quote.: he was asked to write a report about JFK’s so-called
desires, citing Boring as the source for the order via radio
transmission. The others Greer, Kinney and Blaine ..were not
asked to write a similar report. In addition, Manchester had
access to this report while writing his book. Also unlike the
others, Roberts was interviewed twice and while Greer never went
on record with his feelings about the matter ,one way or the
other, Kinney denied the veracity of Manchester’s information ,
while Blaine denied the substance of the information, although
he DID mention the ‘Ivy League charlatan’ remark coming from a
second source .Finally, of the 21 agents interviewed by
Manchester .Blaine is the only agent ---save two headquarters
Inspectors ( see next note)---whose interview comments are not to
be found in the text or index. In addition two other agents
Lawton & Newman mention the remark as hearsay, it is likely that
Manchester seized upon the remark and greatly exaggerated its
significance ..AND attributed it to Boring, while his actual
source was probably Roberts (and or Blaine). Again since Boring
was not interviewed the comment had to come second hand from some
other agent, who in turn received the remark second hand from
Boring. In the end the question is: Did Boring really give out
these orders on instructions from JFK.? (6) Interestingly
Manchester having interviewed 21 different agents/ officials for
his book (p.600-669), chose to include interviews with SS
Inspectors Burrill Peterson and Jack Warner...What’s the problem?
These men who were not even associated with the Texas trip in any
way, were interviewed more than any other agents, 4 times each
(Peterson 10/9/64..11/7/64..11/18/64..2/5/65. Warner
6/2/64..11/18/64..2/5/65..5/12/65. Only Emory Roberts, Clint
Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Forrest Sorrels had two each. While all
other agents/officials had one. More importantly, unlike all
other 19 agents, save one Gerald Blaine (a Texas trip WHD agent).
These two Inspectors are not even mentioned in the actual text or
index? Their comments are invisible to the reader. It appears
that Manchester’s book was an officially sanitized book more so
than we thought (as most everyone knows the book was written with
Jackie Kennedy’s approval, it was her idea. Manchester had early
access to the WC itself. Warren appointed him an ex-officio
member of the Commission. He approved an office for him in
Washington’s VFW building. Where the commission met, and where
copies of reports and depositions were made available to him.(p:
XIX) Inspector Peterson was prominent in the post-assassination
press dealings. Sorrels testified “I don’t think at any time you
will see that there is any statement made by the newspapers or
television that we said anything because Mr.Kelley ,the Inspector
,told me “Any information that is given out will have to come
from Inspector Peterson in Washington”.(7H359). Burrill Peterson
became an Assistant Director for Investigations in 1968.(20 Years
in the Secret Service “ by Rufus Youngblood. 1973 p: 220. Jack
Warner went on to become Director of Public Affairs till in the
90s Acting as a buffer to critical press questions during
assassination attempts on President Ford and other related
matters.(The Secret Service :The Hidden History of an Enigmatic
Agency 2003:Phillip Melanson and Peter Stevens: p
101,201,224,237. Jack Warner would also later become a consultant
to the 1993 Clint Eastwood movie “In The Line of Fire” .Which
dramatized the life of Clint Hill.
Hills testimony:
Clinton J.Hill WC Testimony
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm
His original report.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sa-hill.htm
************************
Agent Emory P. Roberts (ATSAIC, Commander of the Secret Service
follow-up car)
A native of Cockeysville, Maryland, Roberts had
previously served with the Maryland State Police, the Baltimore
County Police, and as an investigator for the Office of Price
Administration. Secret Service agent Emory P. Roberts was also
a high school colleague of author Howard Donahue of “Mortal
Error” fame.[ii] Roberts was appointed to the Secret Service in
January 1944, in Baltimore, and also served in the Washington
field office before joining the White House Detail during the
Truman era.[iii] Roberts was awarded the Exceptional Civilian
Service Award for outstanding service while protecting Richard M.
Nixon, then President Eisenhower’s Vice President, in June, 1958,
in Caracas, Venezuela.[iv]
Former agent Darwin Horn, who served with Roberts on the White
House Detail during the Eisenhower years, wrote: “Emory Roberts
was a very fine accomplished agent. He was the No.3 man on Bill
Shields shift behind Pat Boggs. He was a very congenial
well-liked agent who was always available to assist younger
agents. I do not know from what office he had come from when he
rejoined the WHD in about 1955.”[v] Former WHD agent Charles J.
Marass wrote: “Regarding Emory Roberts, he was a very competent,
conscientious, dedicated, honorable person and agent. He was the
Shift Leader that I was assigned to during my duty at the White
House Detail. Emory was so concerned about those on his shift we
affectionately referred to him as our “Mother Hen.” Emory
performed his duties in a most professional manner.”[vi]
Roberts had been on President Kennedy's trip to Florida on
November 18, 1963. As he was later to do on the fateful Texas
trip, Mr. Roberts served as the commander of the agents in the
follow-up car, one of two well-used 1956 Cadillac convertibles
that sometimes served as the presidential limousine (an example
is provided in JFK's summer, 1963, Ireland trip[vii]). On both
trips, Sam Kinney served as the driver of this car.[viii] As one
of three Shift Leaders of the White House Detail (the other two
were Stewart G. Stout, Jr. and Arthur L. Godfrey, both also on
the Texas trip with Roberts[ix]), Emory was a stern and forceful
agent who took and gave out orders in a serious manner while
working on President Kennedy's trips. It was during the Florida
trip that some interesting things involving Agent Roberts
occurred which would have a direct bearing on November 22, 1963.
The President visited Palm Beach, Cape Canaveral, Miami, and
Tampa on November 18, 1963. As agent’s Chuck Zboril and Don
Lawton were riding on the rear of the limousine in Tampa, someone
from the crowd threw a red "Powerhouse" candy bar at the
motorcade, and the confection landed with a "thud" on the hood of
the Secret Service follow-up car. Thinking it to be a lethal
stick of dynamite, Agent Roberts pushed the object forcefully off
the hood. Realizing what the object really was, Roberts and the
other agents shared a laugh about it.[x] But they had had good
reason to be jumpy: the atmosphere in Tampa (and Miami) was one
that gave the agents cause for concern--hostility from the
anti-Castro Cuban community, the Joseph Milteer threat, and an
organized crime related-scare.[xi] As he had done countless times
before, Mr. Roberts had the two agents that were riding on the
rear of the presidential limousine "fall back" from time to time
(sometimes based on Special Agent in Charge Jerry Behn's
suggestion; in this case it was the number two agent, Assistant
Special Agent in Charge Floyd Boring). This was quite often a
spur-of-the-moment decision based on the speed of the cars, the
size and proximity of the crowd, and the potential for threat(s)
at the moment (often, the two agents on the rear of JFK's
limousine took their own initiative in going between the two
cars, as agent Clint Hill did several times in Dallas[xii]). This
will become important later.
Jumping ahead to Dallas on November 22, 1963, (after friendly,
enthusiastic, and uneventful motorcades in San Antonio,
Houston, and Fort Worth on November 21-22, 1963), Agent Roberts
assigned the other seven agents on his particular shift to the
follow-up car: Sam Kinney, Clint Hill, Paul Landis, William"Tim"
McIntyre, Glen Bennett, George Hickey, and John Ready[xiii] -
four of whom had only hours before participated in the infamous
drinking incident in Fort Worth. Mr. Roberts' shift was the worst
offender of the three shifts![xiv] What makes this even more
tragic is that Roberts had the most important shift of all: the
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift-- the Fort Worth/Dallas part of the
Texas trip (the other two shifts, Agent Stout's 4:00 p.m. to
midnight detail and Agent Godfrey's midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift
were not actively protecting JFK during the Dallas motorcade.
They were all waiting for JFK to complete the motorcade--Stout's
detail at the Trade Mart, Godfrey's detail in Austin with Bob
Burke and Bill Payne at both the Commodore-Perry Hotel and the
LBJ Ranch).
Cover-up number one: Agent Roberts would later write (April 28,
1964): "there was no question in my mind as to [the agents]
physical and mental capacity to function effectively in their
assigned duties."[xv] Like Chief Rowley and Inspector Kelley
before both the Warren Commission and the HSCA, Agent Roberts
covered up the drinking incident, despite Secret Service
regulations that clearly stated that these were grounds for
removal from the agency.[xvi] Sleep deprivation and alcohol
consumption wreak havoc on even the best-trained reflexes. While
leaving Love Field on the way to the heart of Dallas, destiny,
and murder, Agent Roberts rose from his seat and, using his voice
and several hand gestures, forced agent Henry J. Rybka to fall
back from the rear area of JFK's limousine, causing a perplexed
Rybka to stop and raise his arms several times in disgust (Rybka
would then remain at the airport during the murder, having been
effectively neutralized)---although Paul Landis made room for him
on the right running board of the follow-up car, Agent Rybka did
not budge.[xvii] Despite the fact that Rybka had worked the
follow-up in Houston the day before[xviii] and was an
experienced[xix] protective agent[xx], he was not allowed to do
his job on November 22,1963 (Rybka has since died). Agent Rybka,
fresh from Secret Service School and the Florida trip, both in
November, 1963[xxi], knew what the standard procedure was, both
through training and seeing with his own two eyes: to have agents
on or near the rear of the presidential limousine.
Cover-up number two: Both Emory Roberts and Winston Lawson placed
Agent Rybka in the follow-up car in their (initial) reports, only
to "correct" the record later, after November 22, although Rybka
was not even mentioned anywhere in Agent Lawson's Preliminary
Survey Report to begin with---making it seem obvious that Lawson
was covering for Emory Roberts.[xxii] Incredibly, Emory Roberts
made the same "mistake" twice: In the shift report of 11/22/63
(separate from the one depicted in the Commission’s
volumes[xxiii]), Roberts placed Rybka in the "center rear seat"
between Hickey and Bennett![xxiv] Oddly, this was not the first
time Rybka was "mistakenly" replaced in the follow-up car during
November 1963. The shift report of 11/9/63, written by agent
David Grant, stated that Rybka drove the follow-up car in New
York.[xxv] The problem lies in the fact that Rybka was actually
left behind in Washington, D.C. at the time, as the November 8
and 9 shift reports make abundantly clear[xxvi]--- bizarre
indeed.
As the cars approached the Main and Houston Street intersection,
Clint Hill fell back to the follow-up car. Agent Hill was the
only agent to ride on the rear of the limousine in Dallas and he
was not even assigned to JFK (as a last-minute addition to the
trip, Agent Hill was, like Paul Landis, part of Jackie's detail,
and came at the First Lady's personal request). John Ready, the
agent assigned to President Kennedy’s side of the limousine and
riding on the right front running board of the follow-up car,
never approached JFK's side of the limousine. Why not? Emory
Roberts lamely explained: "SA Ready would have done the same
thing (as Agent Hill did) if motorcycle was not a President's
corner of car"(!)[xxvii] Strange, but this posed no problem at
all for Agent Don Lawton on November 18, 1963, in Tampa[xxviii]
(but unfortunately, like Rybka, Lawton was left at Love Field and
was not in the motorcade detail[xxix]). In any event, there was
always cooperation between the motorcycles and the agents; they
maneuvered around each other countless times, including in Dallas
on November 22.
Cover-up number three: The infamous April 22, 1964 reports from
Agents Behn, Boring, Ready, Hill, and Emory Roberts, alleging,
after-the-fact, that President Kennedy had ordered agents off the
rear of the limousine on November 18, 1963 in Tampa, and in other
cities.[xxx] As previously discussed in detail, the Secret
Service blamed JFK for the removal of the agents on or near the
rear of his limousine and this is simply untrue. Although Agent
Roberts admitted recognizing "Oswald's" first shot as a rifle
blast[xxxi], as the Altgens photo confirms, he made a mysterious
transmission via radio microphone that is not accounted for in
his reports or in the official record.[xxxii] Instead of offering
a shout of alarm, alert, or orders to his agents to do something
that their own initiative lacked for some reason, i.e.,
protective action, he did nothing to help the wounded President.
Allen Dulles of the Warren Commission asked: “Who would cover
straight ahead?” Chief Rowley responded: “The man in the front
seat [unnamed: Roberts] has that responsibility.”[xxxiii] None of
the follow-up car agents, via their individual scanning duties,
which had them actually looking AWAY from JFK and at different
points of the crowd, had the responsibility of watching ONLY the
presidential vehicle. That job belonged to Roberts alone, and it
appears obvious that the other agents of the follow-up car relied
heavily on Roberts to sound some sort of alarm in the event of
trouble in JFK’s car. Roberts' recall of Agent Ready is well
documented[xxxiv], although we still have:
Cover-up number four: The alleged speed of the limousine and the
alleged distance between the two cars (9-11 mph and five feet in
reality, not the 20-25 mph and 20-25 feet stated in both Roberts
and Agent Ready's reports) was used as the pretext for the recall
of Ready.[xxxv] Taking everything cited to this point into
account, there is still another factor that has escaped virtually
everyone, and this "factor" came about quite accidentally. In
Groden and Livingstone's High Treason[xxxvi], it was noted:
"Emory Roberts ordered the agents not to move," which this author
took to be an unintended overstatement at the time. So, the
author decided to read the passage to Sam Kinney for commentary.
Surprisingly, Sam told the author, "Exactly right, and I'm
involved in that, too!" Before the author could digest this
troubling information, Sam attempted to defend Roberts’ actions
by stating that the angle of the follow-up car he was driving
wasn’t conducive to any of the other agents taking action (as
Hill did), an excuse the author does not find valid. Kinney told
a similar story to the HSCA on 2/26/78: “Mr. Kinney’s analysis of
Roberts’ order was that if Roberts had permitted Ready to go, and
“if ready had done what Hill did, I’ve got one of them,” i.e.
because of the impossibility of swerving away at an angle wide
enough to avoid both of them.” However, the Nix film (as well as
the Zapruder film) demonstrates that, during the shooting, the
follow-up car had slowed down, lagging somewhat behind the
presidential limousine. Therefore, Kinney’s car---and JFK’s car,
for that matter---wasn’t quite close enough or moving fast enough
to create the hazard Kinney eludes to. Ironically, if the
required five-foot distance between the vehicles had been
maintained (as it had been up to right before the shooting), not
to mention a faster rate of speed, Kinney would be on firmer
ground. In addition, Agent Tim McIntyre told the HSCA on 1/31/78
that the follow-up car was “slightly to the left rear of the
limousine,” so, if anything, Hill was in more danger than Ready
when he took off to protect Mrs. Kennedy. So, besides the Love
Field recall of Agent Rybka and Dealey Plaza recall of Ready,
Roberts also immobilized the other agents at a critical juncture
in the shooting, causing a non- JFK agent (Clint Hill) to react
too late to do anything but cover the corpse of the
President.[xxxvii] HSCA attorney Belford Lawson also was troubled
by Roberts’ conduct---he wrote in a once-secret memorandum: “Why
[wasn’t] Emory Roberts…called to testify?”[xxxviii]
Presidential aides Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers best summed up
the situation when they wrote: "Roberts, one of President
Kennedy's agents...had decided to switch to Johnson as soon as
Kennedy was shot.”[xxxix] In addition, four other authors have
noted Agent Roberts' "switch of allegiance," including Chief
Curry.[xl] Once at Parkland Hospital, SA Roberts totally usurped
his superior, number-three agent Roy Kellerman. Emory ordered
Kellerman's agents around and confided in Rufus Youngblood, the
soon-to-be SAIC, replacing the absent Behn.[xli] What William
Manchester reports as having occurred at Parkland makes one both
sick and repulsed: "…Powers and O'Donnell bounded toward the
Lincoln. Powers heard Emory Roberts shouting at him to stop but
disregarded him; a second might save Kennedy's life [Dave, too
bad you weren't on the running board of the follow-up
car]...Emory Roberts brushed past O'Donnell, determined to make
sure that Kennedy was dead. 'Get up,' he said to Jacqueline
Kennedy. There was no reply. She was crooning faintly. From his
side Roberts could see the President's face, so he lifted her
elbow for a close look. He dropped it. To Kellerman, his
superior, he said tersely, 'You stay with Kennedy. I'm going to
Johnson.'"[xlii]
It is a shame that Emory Roberts cannot enlighten us on his
conduct: having never been questioned by the Warren Commission or
the FBI, he died on 10/8/73 at his Brookeville, MD home, after an
apparent heart attack. Roberts was 58 at the time.[xliii] Only
author William Manchester spoke to him (on 12/4/64 & 4/26/65,
respectively[xliv]). Incredibly, Roberts was the President’s
receptionist during the Johnson administration while still a
member of the Secret Service, receiving a Special Service Award
from the Treasury Department for improving communications and
services to the public in 1968[xlv] ---a year later, during the
start of the Nixon administration in 1969, Roberts was promoted
to the coveted position of Inspector at Secret Service
headquarters, responsible for overseeing a number of protective
procedures and policies. Roberts retired from the Secret Service
in February 1973.[xlvi]
In keeping with the above comments, the author has traced the
critical decision to have LBJ and Kennedy’s coffin aboard Air
Force One (instead of Air Force Two) back to the primary source:
Emory Roberts.[xlvii] “Official” history has it that Kenny
O’Donnell specifically told Lyndon Johnson to take the
presidential plane---Air Force One---rather than Air Force Two
because it allegedly had better communication equipment. This is
what LBJ alleged in his Warren Commission affidavit.[xlviii]
However, O’Donnell denied this, telling author William
Manchester: “The President and I had no conversation regarding
Air Force One. If we had known he was going on Air Force One, we
would have taken Air Force Two. One plane was like the
other.”[xlix] In fact, when Arlen Specter of the Warren
Commission asked O’Donnell, “Was there any discussion about his
[LBJ] taking the presidential plane, AF-1, as opposed to AF-2?”
O’Donnell responded: “There was not.”[l] In this regard,
O’Donnell later wrote in his book “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye”
that a Warren Commission attorney---the aforementioned Arlen
Specter---asked him to “change his testimony so that it would
agree with the President’s”---an offer O’Donnell refused.[li]
With this in mind, author Jim Bishop reported: “Emory Roberts
suggested that Johnson leave at once for Air Force One…Roberts
asked Kenny O’Donnell and he said: “Yes.” Johnson refused to
move. Roberts returned to O’Donnell and asked again: “Is it all
right for Mr. Johnson to board Air Force One now?” “Yes”
O’Donnell said, “Yes [emphasis added].”[lii] This author believes
O’Donnell when he says he had no part in LBJ going to Air Force
One over Air Force Two. This was a Secret Service (Emory Roberts)
decision.
Finally, back to the subject of allegiance, Manchester wrote:
“The Secret Service…was riven by disunion. The agents were as
leaderless and perplexed as the rest of the Presidential party
[on 11/22/63]. A few (Kellerman, Hill) remained near Kennedy.
Others (Youngblood, Roberts, Johns) went with Johnson. Most were
following personal loyalties [emphasis added].”[liii] Roberts’
White House Communications Agency (WHCA) code name was
Dusty.[liv]
Even former agent Abraham Bolden was shocked at Roberts’
conduct.[lv]
Conclusion - a major suspect in both the security test and the
murder itself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
“The Washington Post,” 10/11/73 Manchester, p.165
[ii] Author's interview with Howard Donahue, September 23, 1992
[iii] “The Washington Post,” 10/11/73 David Clark, Archivist,
Harry S. Truman Library & Museum: Reathel M. Odum Papers, Box 10.
Odum was Secretary to Mrs. Truman: 1945 - 1953
[iv] “The Washington Post,” 10/11/73 A picture of Roberts
protecting Nixon in Caracas can be found in “Know Your
Government: The U.S. Secret Service,” by Gregory Matusky & John
P. Hayes, page 36.
[v] E-mail to author dated 2/27/04
[vi] Letter to author dated 3/25/04
[vii] From the videotape presentations "Kennedy's Ireland" and
"JFK: A Celebration of his Life and Times" (the vehicle had the
D.C. license plate number GG678)
[viii] Author's interviews with Sam Kinney during October 1992,
March-April 1994
[ix] Author's interview with Art Godfrey (who guarded JFK at the
Hotel Texas in Fort Worth on the evening of November 21, 1963,
and was waiting for the president in Austin, when the
assassination occurred; for his part, Agent Stoutalso protected
President Truman during the assassination attempt at Blair House
in 1950 -- along with Floyd Boring) Their designation was ATSAIC
– Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge, a position right
below the ASAIC's.
[x] Author's interviews with Kinney (4/15/94) and Agent Don
Lawton (11/15/95). See also page 691 of Lamar Waldron’s book
“Ultimate Sacrifice” (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2005)
[xi] Peter Dale Scott, “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK.” See
also Gaeton Fonzi, “The Last Investigation” (New York: Thunder's
Mouth 1993); Author's interviews with Robert Bouck, September 27,
1992; HSCA document 180- 10074-10394, an interview with agent
Robert J. Jamison states: “the threat of November 18, 1963 was
posed by a mobile, unidentified rifleman with a high-powered
rifle fitted with a scope." In addition, HSCA document
180-10083-10419, an interview with Lubert F. deFreese, states: “a
threat did surface in connection with the Miami trip." Author’s
interviews with Sam Kinney
[xii] Author's interviews with: Jerry Behn (three on 9/27/92),
Robert Bouck (9/27/92) and Bob Lilley (three)
[xiii] 18H 738. Agent John Ready may have also been mentally
occupied: according to the Secret Service shift reports released
by the ARRB in the later 1990’s, an "emergency leave" took Ready
out of the White House detail from November 15-19, 1963, missing
the entire Florida trip [as verified by USSS RIF#
1541-0001-10081], although Ready claimed during his 3/1/78 HSCA
interview that he arrived in Miami on 11/18/63 for the Florida
trip with JFK, THEN went home upon being advised of a death in
his family. Although he did go back on duty November 21, in time
for the Texas trip, he did not ride in the follow up car in San
Antonio, Houston or Fort Worth on November 21, 1963.
[xiv] 18H665-702 Agents Hill, Ready, Landis and Bennett were the
guilty parties on Roberts' shift.
[xv] 18H679
[xvi] 18 H 665
[xvii] WFAA-TV (ABC's Dallas affiliate) on 11/22/63; 25H 787;
video shown on “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” 2003 by the author;
While SA Lawton states categorically in his 11/30/63 report that
“…my instructions were to remain at the airport to effect
security for the President’s departure,” Agent Rybka’s very
brief, vague, and UNDATED report contains no such disclaimer.
Rybka’s report is by far the briefest of the 29 reports submitted
to Chief Rowley and the Warren Commission. Many of the agents
submitted two (or more) reports, a good percentage of which were
multi-page reports and with some detail, not to mention a proper
date somewhere on the report.
[xviii] Advance man Jerry Bruno's notes from the JFK Library in
Boston. Agent Henry Rybka was also on the follow-up car team in
San Antonio on 11/21/63 In addition, the newly-released Cooper
film depicts Rybka jumping out of the follow-up car in Fort Worth
on 11/22/63 -- he was the first agent out of the car. On two of
the three stops, Rybka was not the driver.
[xix] Rybka was a member of the detail during at least the latter
Eisenhower years: Protective Survey Report dated 1/16/61 Re:
Inaugural Activities of the President on January 20, 1961,
conducted by SAIC James M. Beary (1-15 [Washington Field Office])
and SA H.S. Knight (1-16 [WHD])
[xx] Kellerman, 2 H 69: “Each agent carries his own gun. This is
a 4-inch revolver on their person.” See also Hill, 2 H 134
[xxi] Secret Service shift reports, November 1963.
[xxii] 18H739; 17 H 593-600: Lawson's Preliminary Survey Report
[dated 11/19/63]; 17 H 601-617: Lawson's Final Survey Report.
[xxiii] 18 H 739
[xxiv] USSS RIF # 1541-0001-10031
[xxv] USSS RIF # 1541-0001-10127
[xxvi] USSS RIF #s 1541-0001-10132 & 1541-0001-10125
[xxvii] 18 H 738
[xxviii] Cecil Stoughton photos from John F.Kennedy Library in
Boston; Author’s interviews with agents Don Lawton and Chuck
Zboril (November 1995)
[xxix] 25 H 786
[xxx] 18 H 803-809
[xxxi] 18H 734-735 Manchester, page 155 Manchester did interview
Emory Roberts twice (p.667).
[xxxii] 18H735-739 --the first transmission was made a full
minute before the shooting, while the other was made after the
shooting
[xxxiii] 5 H 453
[xxxiv] 18H 749-750;also 734.Manchester, pages 155-156, 165
[xxxv] Roberts and Ready’s reports, CD 3 Exhibits
[xxxvi] “High Treason,” pages 14 and 417.
[xxxvii] Hill also described the president's skull defect as
located in the "right rear" with the actual missing piece of
skull lying in the back of the car. This was confirmed by Agent
Sam Kinney to the author on two occasions
[xxxviii] RIF# 180-10093-10320: 5/31/77 Memorandum from HSCA’s
Belford Lawson to fellow HSCA members’ Gary Cornwell & Ken Klein
(revised 8/15/77)
[xxxix] “Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye” by O'Donnell, Ken, Dave Powers
and Joe McCarthy, p. 34
[xl] Manchester, pages 165 & 175; Curry, pages 36-37; “Farewell
America” (Hepburn), page 229 “The Flying White House,” p.215.
[xli] Manchester, pages 170, 175-176, 233
[xlii] Manchester 170, 232-233; interviews with Kinney and Boring
in March and April 1994. See also Bishop, page 195. The Texas
trip was apparently Kellerman's first MAJOR, multi-stop trip on
his own in a supervisory capacity, for the November 8th and 9th
shift reports place Kellerman in New York (without Agents Behn or
Boring). However, this was not the more publicized trip that JFK
made to the same city a few days later (11/14 and 15 with Floyd
Boring, who was ALSO on the Elkton, MD and Florida trips around
this same time period). Evidently, the president made a low-key
trip---that even advance agent Godfrey couldn’t remember (see
chapter two)--- to New York before the NYC trip that was well
covered in the media. This first NY trip, for all intents and
purposes, was unknown to researchers today until the author
‘discovered’ it (in contrast to the infamous second NY trip).
Also, no motorcade was involved on this trip, an important
distinction from the second NY trip days later.
[xliii] “The Washington Post,” 10/11/73. Agent Rex Scouten to
author (Letter received 9/98): "Emory Roberts, a very good friend
of mine, died in the late 60's as I recall [actually
10/8/73]---returned home from work one afternoon----laid down on
the bed and suffered a major heart attack---and died."
[xliv] Manchester, page 667
[xlv] “The Washington Post,” 10/11/73
[xlvi] “The Washington Post,” 10/11/73
[xlvii] Manchester, pages 232 - 235; Bishop, pages 199, 200, 244,
247, & 249; "A Woman Called Jackie," page 403; 18 H 736; 2 H 152;
5 H 562-563.
[xlviii] 5 H 563
[xlix] “Crossfire” by Jim Marrs, pages 296-297. See also Bishop,
page 259, and Manchester, pages 234-235.
[l] 7 H 451 See also “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye,” pages 35 and 38
[li] Marrs, page 297. In fact, as noted by researcher David
Starks in his 1994 video “The Investigations,” while Specter’s
name appears in the hardcover version of O’Donnell’s book, it was
deleted from the mass-market paperback [page 41]!
[lii] Bishop, page 244.
[liii] Manchester, page 176
[liv] Ibid. page xxi.
[lv] Author’s interview with Bolden, 9/16/93
"This was quite often a spur-of-the-moment decision based on the speed of the cars, the size and proximity of the crowd, and the potential for threat(s) at the moment (often, the two agents on the rear of JFK's limousine took their own initiative in going between the two cars, as agent Clint Hill did several times in Dallas."
.Bernice.......and Clint Hill was the only SA agent, to use that initiative.
SA Ready did not move during the motorcade to protect President Kennedy from
the rear right bumper, when he finally did attempt to, after the JFK had been hit, Roberts called him back...And thus, this allowed an unobstructed line of fire for the shooters ..
""Cover-up number two: Both Emory Roberts and Winston Lawson placed Agent Rybka in the follow-up car in their initial reports, only to "correct" the record later, after November 22, although Rybka was not even mentioned anywhere in Agent Lawson's Preliminary Survey Report--making it seem obvious that he was covering Emory Roberts' behind.19 As the cars approached the Main and Houston Street intersection, Clint Hill fell back to the follow-up car. Agent Hill was the only agent to ride on the rear of the limousine in Dallas and he was not even assigned to JFK (as a last-minute addition to the trip, Agent Hill was, like Paul Landis, part of Jackie's detail, and came at the First Lady's personal request). John Ready, a relatively new agent, never approached JFK's side of the limousine. Why not? Emory Roberts explained: "SA Ready would have done the same thing (as Agent Hill did) if motorcycle was not a President's corner of car"(!)20 Strange, but this posed no problem at all for Agent Don Lawton on November 18, 1963, in Tampa21 (but unfortunately, like Rybka, Lawton was left at Love Field and was not in the motorcade detail).22 In any event, there was always cooperation between the motorcycles and the agents; they maneuvered around each other countless times, including in Dallas on November 22. ""
http://www.jfklink.com/articles/EmoryRoberts.html
********************************
Below is a quote from Vince Palamara's " Survivor's Guilt" p 55, chapter 7...
Information from a very sad episode in history, the execution of
President John F.Kennedy,and in relation to the aftermath..
Famous reporter Merriman Smith, who rode in the Dallas motorcade, was
close to the Secret Service:
He"....lived so closely with Sercret Service men that he came to share their views
on many of the problems involved in protecting presidents...We've shared some
terrible moments. A Secret Service agent once came to me months after Dallas
and said he still suffered from horrible nightmares in which he would relive the
assassination scene. He was loosing sleep and weight and, he was afraid his
nerves. I told him that the same thing had happened to me, and that I had finally
gone to a psychiatrist about the problem..."
Timothy G.Smith (ed), "Merriman Smith's Book of President's : A White House
Memoir". pages 225, 234, 235..
Merriman Smith committed suicide in 1970: a self- inflicted gunshot wound.
I believe some SA were involved, but certainly not all....one who suffered for
many years was SA Clint Hill........the only hero that day..imo..
the photo shows all within his face, frame from 60 minutes...
******************************
SS Fact Sheet
http://www.jfk-assassination.net/palamara/factsheet_vmp.html
Below Altgens showing Emory Roberts possibley on the radio mike....
Showing Emory Roberts..in the Dallas Cinema Film, from Marcel..
Clint Hill on bumper..during motorcade.....
SS Evidence flow chart......
Emory Roberts statement, he never appeared nor was called upon by the W/C....
Rybka left behind at Love field..
Clint Hill on 60 minutes...
Emory Roberts & Floyd Boring
Queen Mary Agents
Hill Kellerman & Greer 1970
Clint Hill Motorcade
B
-
My site has been infected with a trojan virus
Trojan Horse Virus PSW.Ldpinch HZI
For the safety of Visitors to my sight, i have closed the webpage down, i am so angry right now, that i have Cancelled my PREMIUM subscription with Geocities.com
If you use my normal webpage URL you may now access my photo archives directly, no thumbnail pics just links.
http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri2/
The site has reverted back to the free service which means LIMITED downloads once more.
Sorry guys.
Uh oh...
So sorry Robin.
Not to be self absorbed (much) but how contagious is it?
Hope you can get your site back to normal without too much work.
Hi Myra.
I don't think the site will be back in it's original form for some time yet ,if ever.
Thanks John.
Exellent.
I'm going to have a good read of that information.
I have emailed my web host to see what, if anything, they can do about it. ?
**************
Oh, Robin after all your time ,effort and hard work, and it is....and so very expensive...
Hang in there, pulling for you, this is the one thing, that really gets all people riled...
I also went through a Trojan, a few years back, and no xxxxe it ate, as they put it and
totally destroyed the hard drive.....they said in TO it was melded, whatever that meant..
My youngest is a Techie, and could not believe what he found, so he took it to the company.
he worked for, they neither had seen such before...?? but all was lost..
and that was just my own pc, files and such.......not a site....
so I can well imagine, your disappointed and greater frustration...
So I am feeling extremely bad for you....but do hope, your host in some way will be able to help..
The creatures that invent these programs of ruin, should be locked up with each other..in one
room, with one computer, wonder how many would come out alive after 30 days...
....as they appear to be a driven sick lot..and world wide...
Best..B..
P.S.You shall be back, bigger and better.....
-
Hi Bernice.Yes that top south side scan was one of mine, the other Cancellare photo i have NEVER seen before.
Thanks very much for posting it, the pick up in that image looks very much like the one in Cancellare 1
Brenice.
I still only consider myself a new kid on the block compared to people like yourself, Rich, and Jack.
QUOTE:
as well imo there are many still being hidden from us, and others that should be accessible
are not. They are held privately or as at the 6th Floor Museum, and that is all very well and good, for anyone who
just happens to live in the area, to just drop on over and they will be shown to you....
That is an impossibilty for 99% of the people.
Bernice.
I could not agree more, every time i purchase an image from Corbis it costs me $159.00 Australian.
So far i have purchased about 8 of them.
Meanwhile people like Gary and the sixth floor museum sit on there stash of photo's and i get more frustrated about that as time goes on.
Example: try to find a good copy of any Skaggs photo's online.
you wont, because the sixth floor museum is holding them all back.
OK THAT IS MY LITTLE DUMMY SPIT.
Now i will sit back and wait for Gary Mack's email to arrive.
Admission to 6th Floor Museum:
Adult $10.00 US
Senior (ages 65+) $9.00 US
Youth (ages 6-18) $9.00 US
Children (ages 0-5) FREE
With Audio Tour:
Adult $13.50 US
Senior (ages 65+) $12.50 US
Youth (ages 6-18) $12.50 US
Children (ages 0-5) $3.50 US
Q: What is the annual attendance at Museum?
The Sixth Floor Museum averages over 450,000 visitors annually.
$10 X 450,000 = $4,500,000 = $4,500,000
Then there are the proceeds from the Museum Store, where valuable T-shirts are sold to researchers.
Q: Who initiated this project?
The citizens of Dallas County purchased the former school book depository in 1977, effectively protecting it from commercial exploitation. In 1979, the National Endowment for the Humanities funded a study panel. It recommended a plan to create a major cultural exhibition on the building's sixth floor.
Q: Why must the Museum charge admission?
The Museum is a non-profit organization and receives no governmental funding for operating expenses.
Non-profit would mean tax exempt.
Q: Why is there security?
The Museum deals with sensitive subject matter and has an international profile, which requires this type of security.
Q: Why is photography not allowed in the Museum?
The atmosphere in the Museum is one of respect and remembrance. Photography would disrupt the visitors to the Museum.
"international profile"? Has the Department of Home Land Security placed The 6th Floor Museum on a terrorist attack high profile list? "sensitive subject matter"? Is there an unknowable secret up there? Yikes!Hello everyone,
Let me start off with how much I respect all of you --Bernice, Robin, Miles,(you folks are great!!!) I understand your frustration,but I can't let this go----
It always has to be about Gary and the 6th floor, with regard to what books are carried, or what mementos one can purchase, etc. Now he is responsible for how much of the photography can be released to the public. (C'mon, now!)
Miles( per your photography in the Museum part of the post)Correct me if I am wrong, but don't repeated photographs of things tend to injure them(as in documents, photos.etc?)
I don't know about the International profile thing, Miles, but there are items up there that are one of a kind and these must be protected.
Gary,I believe, many times is used as the scapegoat for all the maladies inflicted upon the research community.
Kathy
Robin, Bet I get it worse than you---->
***********
Hi Robin,
If that's the case........Hey your doing great kid....
I have be able to have the advantage to have learned under some of thebest, I only wish I had the ability to retain all I have had the privilege to read, see. and do I wish I could have saved it all.......but..not.
$159.00 per copy from Corbis, exactly, that should be unheard of...exasperating to the point of why we say what we do, and besides
than putting one heck of a dent in your piggy bank..sheesh...
and whom we hold responsible for the retaining of the many......and we all know whom that is..delete any unwanted emails..
imo.......
Hi Kathy:
IMO....
I think there are many things you do not understand..or know...perhaps because as you have said in the past youself, you are relativiely new
to all this......
Gary is the Man, whom the photos and films have been and are handed into to, that is a part of his job...he has access to them he handles them,
he hoards them imo......He and his boss., bosses?..A few years back, the Museum ran ads in the Dallas newspapers asking for any copies of films
photos whatever that people had found, retained whatever, be handed in to be donated to the Museum and thereby they could be cared for...They
left out one word, and shared.....and they have not...
IMO, it was also so that they could be in possession of such and anything pertaining to information
that may point a finger at within those photographs, films whatever possibley in any way , that may show another shooter or such, or any ifnormation leading to,
they asked for them imo so that they could be held out of the publics
eye....and they have been witheld, a few have been released and a couple of films after they have been updated and processed , to their liking.
How do we know they did or did not show such, and we never will.....as we have no access to them and if so how many have been cropped, and or blurred
whatever, do I sound as if I do not trust them, no I do not..now...
If Gary wished, there are many that could be released to all, as in the past he has made copies of photos available to those he wishes...
as well as information, BUT Not to all....and no they do not share, they may once in awhile bless us with one, but they sit on them...
with their neat little hoard..also some within the Dallas area have and do the same, such as they have done their own research and studies but do,
they share no...they also hoard it,when contacted you may get a pleasant reply,sometimes, then the brick wall goes up.....been there done that.....and run into it.
It is controlled, see ??
Now if anyone did want to help in the solving of the assassination of the President they would be willing to share with all, even if say that
person is your least favorite,on a F,wherever, no matter that is beside the point, you help by passing on whatever you may have...for the good of all..that
the 6Th Floor does not do and never has..I have been around this bush for years now, it never gets any better, with time it has only gotten
worse.....and led many to simply drop out, others become exasperated to the point of leaving the web, and doing their own thing off the Fs..we
have lost many that way....
Kathy, imo have much research to do re Gary and the 6Th Floor Museum on the web, before you will be able to get the full picture and the back ground
knowledge of what has been going on for many years.......Does it always have to be about Gary and the 6Th Floor, I wish not but....he, they have
created this, by their own doing.....they hold the Zapruder film also which they will not release to the researchers, come on do we want this
solved or not..the questions answered...I do.......but apparently they do not, if they did they would have as well released such as the Skaggs copies , Robin
has mentioned, that I believe they retain.....and anything else that would help....but....
Does he hold all this back, on his own?, I doubt it, he has a boss, bosses ?? so now the bottom line question becomes who does he really work for ??
That they will not release these films, photos and information......
certainly they are not in favor of the researchers...or a solution..... they are not amongst those wanting this to be solved so we can all go home and perhaps
pick up on other interests we left behind years ago..before we pack it in...This research whatever area you get into is time consuming, and very expensive
....there are other things in the world perhaps some of us would like to explore while we still can, but we cannot let this go......under no circumstances
it has become a part of our being...we need the truth...all of it, not parts...
Have you ever wondered the why it always gets around to them well this is just a wee tip of the ice-berg of the information, they and their likes, some of
the rest which is and has been signifigant over the many years has to do with also Groden and Trask, who also have retained many of the photos and the films.....but they work along side with Gary and do work together.
Now go figure....
Kathy Quote: ""It always has to be about Gary and the 6th floor, with regard to what books are carried, or what mementos one can purchase, etc. Now he is responsible for how much of the photography can be released to the public. (C'mon, now!)""
They have ....Much, much, much, much..........Instead of asking us why it has to be about Gary and the 6th Floor, I would think you would have been very curious to find that out for yourself, by now....and
be joining the researchers and those who are trying to get to the bottom of the conspiracy... in the fight for the release of these photos, docs, films and whatever they do have, which is more than ample, to help in the fight...these many years......as for books......why does he recommend such as Posner's "Case Closed" for sale in the book store, but will not do the
same for Weisberg's "Case Open" the other side, the conspiracy side, why does he not recommend such as all of Harold Weisberg's books, be sold, that are available
from Horn College and not out of print, which is also what he enjoys saying..at times..about some of the books..He once said it was because they were not the kind of books that were accepted in the education system, and taught from, words to that effect, not
verbatim....well he was very wrong..very....Harold's books have been taught as courses at Horn College, therefore they were
ascceptable to the educational system..........but they were not acceptable to him because he did not accept them or on orders ?? who knows..?....and or as he has said they write of the conspiracy....
There are a great many other books also not sold that he does not and has not recommended.....He will say well we have sold a few at times, well whoopee....I am asking for the other side to be sold a free and open society where all and anyone is able to by both sides of the picture, not just the Governments false findings in the W/C. and books that back that up......I understand that it would be impossible to sell all, but some of the more important ,yes to give a fair opportunity to the people.
Will he sell David Talbots, "Brothers" perhaps if it is a best seller and the public will demand it...perhaps??
Will he recommend the new Bugliosi book, be sold, you betcha, front and centre, why because the Bug states that it proves the W/C got it right, and LHO was the lone assassin, as Lordy, they can't change their minds now, they have to protect the institutions of the Gov. and by saying they did not get it correct would be saying, do not support, nor believe in your Gov.they lied to you, and they cannot have that.....and right now they need all the support they can muster in the sanctity of such and the Bush W/H...
Gary double speaks, he says on one hand that he thinks there might have been a conspiracyy but on the other hand, he actions prove louder than words.??
Just my 2 long cents....but do some searching especially in some of the older threads on this F, and see for yourself what is available out there and perhaps you will find there is a lot more to all this than just, as you say.."It always has to be about Gary and the 6th Floor": find out some of the the whys..of all...
With respect.........B
P.S Miles"
Maaaaarvelous....
-
I think the fundamental problem is that the news media are owned by big corporate interests. Consequently news commentators like Matthews bow down to the corporate interests who pay their salaries. Those interests do not want to hear their employees talking about government conspiracies on national TV. Consequently those employees put their careers above principles and morality when it comes to things like the public executions of the 1960s, not to mention the continuing power of the executioners. I just wonder if all these "news" celebrities sleep well at night. I guess maybe money can even buy that.
******
Hi Ron:
Well said.....and if I may add....a Robert F Kennedy....quote...
‘Few man are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society.
Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world which yields most painfully to change.’
B..
-
Hi Robin:
Thanks for the photos.....I recall also that Rich at jfkresearch had a great photo resource for all available free for many years..
Many of these now that we see did come from there..he has now been busy enablng his photos again..with his illnesses
and all, they were not for about the past 3 years...Jack White has made so much available to us, and if Jack did
not have whatever, he knew who did and could...and did.....He imo deserves so much of the credit for
so very much of all that is now within alls grasp...not just the photos from the assn, but also the people
involved, the likes of David Lifton who eventually enabled us, along with such as Dr. Fetzer with Dr.Mantick, to have and see the autopsy and xray
photos...and Rich posted them all..as well as so much more..like the documents....and they were available to all free of charge, at the time for
many years..so they have been available and made the rounds for quite some time....
As well as the others of the membership that continually added theirs to the resources, and shared with all....by scanning from books and emailing,
and posting and so on....and giving credit where credit was due....much of that also seems to have gone by the wayside imo....so I thought I would
add a few words to yours...
......so many of the newer members now do not know of the past......and how all came eventually came about...
The Lancer F also at one time had photo resources available....all was shared...and appreciated..there was much available, and all
participated..
The Dr.Costella studies of the Zapruder frames, now some may not agree with his findings, but that was the first
time ever that all the frames were contained in one study one link for all to obtain.....
Others way back became available through Harold Weisberg, Sprague and others of their time...that were amongst the first
photo researchers...as well as Jack.....and others I realise I am forgetting..
Today so much more is so available for all.......But there are still restrictions, which imo must end..
The # 2 added south side full was taken either the Sat or the Sun after the assn, is I believe either came from Jerry Dealey or perhaps yourself,
thankyou to whomever..the other # 1is a blow up from the Cancellare south taken that day..from ??..perhaps these are what John was referring to ??
B....
-
John:
I believe you mentioned a railing......is this, across the road, to the left of the tree what you
refer to, if so, is it not the truck pipe exhaust attached to such..sticking up ??
If that is what you mention? and the line to the left of that would be the truck roof.....??
Here is the full Cancellare..
B..
Berice, once more, thank you.
The upright is a street sign on the middle of the Plaza, the horizontal line next to it is the top surface (sunlit) of the steps landing between series of steps leading to the southern collonade.
The rail in question is a diagonal line in the shadows to the right of this. I'll find it and post later. It's roundabout where the 'two objects' arrow points at. There are better resolution copies that show it as a straight line with shadows on the underside as one would expect a handrail to be like. However, various photos since, posted by Robin, one contemporary, shows there was no hand rail.
It's apparent existence did get Tosh into some disrepute and it's only recently now that imagery has come to light to show his statement of there being no handrail there shows he was right all along about this. So, I think he deserves a reappraisal. This is important in relation to him being an ear-eye witness.
These things are for me an example of skepticism is good, but change of mind or shift in position, in the light of definitives go hand in hand. The full cancellare is still only low res and inconclusive, the best copies has the relevant areas cropped off.
I am absolutely certain full res. uncropped Cancellare exists and should be made available to the research community.
********
Thank you John:
That information is not new that there was no handrail, that point was researched and brought forth several years ago..
that I did know about.
I also recall Gary added his comment that was correct, at the time....no handrail ever existed..... that is a given.
I must have not been aware at the time of that discussion took place here, or would have added
my two cents..
There are many photos, we shall never have access to, imo, many have destroyed, frames cut, altered even if they were only
cropped...still altered......as well imo there are many still being hidden from us, and others that should be accessible
are not. They are held privately or as at the 6th Floor Museum, and that is all very well and good, for anyone who
just happens to live in the area, to just drop on over and they will be shown to you....
That is an impossibilty for 99% of the people....so I have thought and will continue to, that they should be released
on the web..or by mail ..?..perhaps for a reasonable fee, a copy, any who have held or continue to hold them back, and or information
are imo contributing not to the discovery of the truth but to stalemate all....which is what they have done for many years...
Carry on ..
B....
.Especially have a look at CE 351..
to try to run it down...well good.....and a 
this same bullet left part of itself on the skull surface near the cowlick area. According to the 6.5 mm object on the frontal X-ray, this had to be a nearly complete cross section from inside the bullet (not from the tip or base—which both were found inside the limousine). Even the HSCA ballistics expert, Sturdivan, insists that, based on his tens of thousands of cases, this cannot be a piece of authentic metal from a bullet. To make matters worse, one large fragment had its metal jacket bent way back. Without striking an object like concrete (e.g., the street) or other metal this is almost unimaginable. 
it is not available to the public. So the question that all of those true believers should pose to me this is: Can Mantik distinguish a duplicate X-ray from an original, in particular when a large area of emulsion (that T-shaped area) has obviously been scraped off the original (but not the copy)? If I can’t, then they should cross this item off my list. However, I am very certain that I can—and no one has suggested that I am so inept that I cannot distinguish an original (with missing emulsion) from a copy (with no missing emulsion). This is the worst possible news for WC supporters. It means that the original has gone missing. More importantly, though, it means that the extant X-ray (the one now in the Archives)—because it is a copy—could have been altered in any number of ways in the darkroom. I have amply demonstrated this possibility with my birdbrain X-rays, skulls with bullet debris added, and one even showing a scissors inside the skull. But, for this simple observation (of intact emulsion), my skills are not even required. Anyone with proper vision could see for themselves that the emulsion (over the T-shaped inscription) is not missing (as it must be for an original) from the left lateral skull X-ray in the Archives.
Dealey Plaza Detailed Map by Donald Roberdeau
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Bernice Moore
Thanks James :
Some of we members have been into the Secret Service Thread, and I recalled what Roberts said in his statement, and of course it certainly did not comply
with the films and photographs.....taken that day...
Thank you for your reply....and clarification.....
B